- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Confirming the agenda for Thursday & Update on CCWG-Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 4, 2016

Feb. 4, 2016

Dear all, We are confirming the agenda for tomorrow¹s call with no change. Here below is a copy of what was sent on Monday: CWG-Stewardship Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Update 3. IANA IPR 4. CCWG-Accountability 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks Update on CCWG-Accountability The CCWG-Accountability call on Tuesday went well for the CWG-Stewardship requirements. I¹ve provided some notes on the outcome below: * Agreement to move forward with IANA budget text (edited by Chuck and Jordan attached). * Agreement to move forward with a combination of solutions to address the IRP scope issue with PTI: include general provision regarding ICANN¹s obligation to cause the PTI to fulfill its obligations (the failure to do so would give rise to a standard IRP) and text to address SLA failures, etc. with an operational (rather than constitutional) standard of review. I will forward the documents to the CWG-Stewardship as soon as they are ready. The tracker is updated and attached to this email as well. A note on process Please note that the budget and the IRP documents are still undergoing revisions, so we will need to turn back to them later this week for the final text. The process is the CCWG-Accountability includes agreement, circulation of revised text to the group, and circulation of revised text to the lawyers. Once the lawyers have reviewed the text, the CCWG receives another version for 48h comment. If there are no comments, then this version is considered final. If there are comments on the lawyers¹ review, then the document goes through another round of edits between CCWG and lawyers. To date, no document has received comments after the lawyers¹ review. Latest CCWG-Accountability Blog Update Original posting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-cc wg-accountability-co-chairs Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the- ccwg-accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c cwg-accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c cwg-accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c cwg-accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c cwg-accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c cwg-accountability-co-chairs#> The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN¹s Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has ushered in 2016 with a full schedule and renewed dedication to its mission. Following the release of the staff report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-acco untability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf> and the summary of public comments <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-draft-ccwg-acc ountability-proposal-08jan16-en.xlsx> , both of which were published on 8 January, the group wasted no time in setting up a rigorous schedule of conference calls for the rest of the month. The schedule was designed to enable inclusive and informed debates about the input received during the 21-day public comment period and the feedback provided by the six Chartering Organizations of CCWG-Accountability. The dedication of our members and participants, along with the increased involvement by members of the ICANN Board, has allowed us to make significant progress over the past four weeks. The collaborative environment has brought us even closer to our goal of a consensus proposal that will meet the requirements of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and fulfill the dependencies of the CWG-Stewardship in the ICG Final Proposal. Here is the current status of each CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations: Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community PowersFinalized. Recommendation #2: Empowering the Community Through Consensus: Engagement, Escalation, EnforcementFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #3: Redefining ICANN¹s Bylaws as Standard Bylaws¹ and Fundamental BylawsFinalized. Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Engagement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community PowersEdits to reflect input on PTI budget (CWG-Stewardship) and indemnification language for removal of Directors by the Empowered Community. Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects ofICANN¹s Mission, Commitments and Core ValuesStill under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN¹s Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out its MissionFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #7: Strengthening ICANN¹s Independent Review ProcessEdits to reflect input on applicability to PTI. Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN¹s Request for Reconsideration ProcessFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #9: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN¹s BylawsStill under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #10: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN¹s BylawsFinal draft to be reviewed by lawyers before final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #11: Board Obligations with regards to Governmental Advisory CommitteeAdvice (Stress Test 18)Still under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2Finalized. For the latest versions of all of the recommendations above, visit the CCWG-Accountability wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/8JVlAw> . After consensus has been reached on our few outstanding issues, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a ³supplemental² report of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations, including a summary of changes from the Third Draft Report. The supplemental report is currently being developed, and will go through an open and transparent process <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20 160120/0e76810a/Timelineandnextsteps-0001.pdf> of 1) CCWG-Accountability consultation, 2) support staff editing/proofing, 3) co-Chair and Rapporteur finalization, 4) legal review and 5) final publication. Our hope is that the majority of changes from the Third Draft Report will relate to specificities of implementation rather than content, and as such, an additional public comment period will not be necessary before approval by the Chartering Organizations. Our goal is to distribute the supplemental report to our Chartering Organizations in time for consideration and approval on all Work Stream 1 Recommendations at ICANN55 in Marrakech.Keeping in mind the working methods for the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, we ask that this be into account as the Chartering Organizations plan their discussions and schedules leading into and during ICANN55. With that said, we encourage any Chartering Organizations that can deliberate and/or approve the Work Stream 1 Recommendations prior to Marrakech to do so. We are grateful for the increased involvement of the ICANN Board as our work has progressed since the Third Draft Report. It has been helpful to understand Board comments in real-time, including ways to ensure any global public interest concerns are debated and considered as the recommendations are being revised. We hope to continue this open dialogue as the supplemental report is finalized, and ask the ICANN Board to be mindful of the timeline as they plan their review period of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations and submission to NTIA. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Two agendas -- your attention please! Ladies and gentlemen of the CWG-Stewardship, On this fine Monday, I have the wonderful opportunity of sending you two agendas: one for the CCWG-Accountability call on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC and one indicative agenda for our CWG-Stewardship call on Thursday at 16:00 UTC. Why you ask? On their Tuesday call, the CCWG-Accountability will be conducting its final readings on three recommendations that relate to the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. There may be some of you interested in these final readings, so we have provided the agenda below. After the CCWG-Accountability call, I will circulate an updated tracker (and any available documents) to the CWG-Stewardship list for the group to review. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs have discussed an indicative agenda for the Thursday call (also below), but reserve the right to, if needed, update the agenda or provide a more detailed agenda following the Tuesday CCWG-Accountability call. Documents for the CCWG-Accountability work can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report. At this time, there are no new documents for Recommendations 4 and 7 related to the IANA Budget and the IRP. If these are circulated before the CCWG-Accountability call, I will send them to this list. Otherwise, I will forward them as soon as they are posted. CCWG-Accountability Agenda **Please note that it is possible that the order of the agenda items will change. If that is the case, I will circulate an updated agenda to this list. ** > At 31/01/2016, Brenda Brewer wrote: > >> Dear all, >> In preparation for your call #82 <https://community.icann.org/x/4wh1Aw> >> Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 06:00 08:00 UTC ( time converter >> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&i >> so=20160202T06&p1=1440&ah=2> ), see below a proposed agenda: >> Agenda for CCWG ACCT Meeting #82 (Tuesday 2 February at 06:00 UTC) >> 1. Opening Remarks >> 2. Final readings on Recommendations that required CWG-Stewardship feedback: >> · Recommendation #4a --Budget >> · Recommendation #4c -- Community IRP & Separation Process >> · Recommendation #7 -- Scope of IRP. >> 3. [Provisional]: Final reading on Recommendation #9 -- AOC Reviews >> 4. [Provisional]: Final reading Recommendation #4b -- Board removal >> liability mitigation >> 5. 4th Reading on Recommendation #5 -- Mission >> 6. 3rd Reading on Recommendation #11 -- GAC Advice >> 7. Timeline & Communication >> 8. AOB >> 9. Closing >> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ >> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> >> >> Thank you! >> Kind regards, >> Brenda CWG-Stewardship [indicative] Agenda (to be confirmed on Wednesday around 18:00 UTC): 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Update 3. IANA IPR 4. CCWG-Accountability 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks Please let me know if you have any questions, Grace

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 3, 2016

Feb. 3, 2016

At 02/02/2016 02:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >Thanks for the share, did a quick read and have >a few general comments/question: > >1. Isn't there a way to have the CSC charter >separate and not incorporated into the bylaw as >the bylaw is looking quite bulky. That said, I >note that it's referred to as Annex D so I >assume that is perhaps the only reference that would exist in the bylaw? Agree. >2. I believe any change in the CSC charter >should involved other chartering SO/AC not just >be based on the ccNSO and GNSO decision. This is moot if the Charter is a Bylaw. But if it is not, there should be involvement of others as there was in the creation of the original. >3. The CCWG proposed process to approve update >of any text in the bylaw (including CSC charter) >should be applied. So I think the charter >update(depending on whether this will be >standard or fundamental bylaw) should be subject to board approval. If it is in a Bylaw, there is no choice but to follow the standard Bylaw change process. >4. Some of the decision making does not >recognise other community like ALAC as part of >the decision makers. For instance the decision process for SCWG. Seun, could you be specific in the reference? The references to the SCWG in particular seem to acknowledge involvement of a Community Mechanism (it ALSO needs ccNSO/GNSO approval) >5. Could it be indicated which of the texts goes >to fundamental bylaw and which one to standard? > >Regards >On 2 Feb 2016 6:21 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" ><<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > >All, > > > >A couple of updates since our previous meeting >and ahead of our meeting on Thursday Feb 4 @ 16h00 UTC. > > > >We are waiting for the final wording from CWG >Accountability in relation to our requirements >on IANA Budget and IRP but now expect that these >will be satisfactorily dealt with. > >As per Graceâs note on the CCWG agenda for >their meeting today, these matters were subject >to âfinal readingâ by the CCWG today. > > > >On the series of questions presented by Sidley >in preparation for drafting the proposed ICANN >Bylaws to deal with the work of the CWG >Stewardship, Graceâs email of Jan 25 sought further input from our group. > > > >Essentially we have: > >a. Input from relevant DT leads (Thank-you!) > >b. Input from staff > >c. Remaining open questions > >Any input to point c above will be helpful. > > > >The plan (as per our last meeting and captured >in Graceâs email of Jan 25) was to review and >provide input so that responses can be provided to Sidley after the Feb 4 Call. > >This work to be done via the mailing list by >using the âtrack changesâ feature in Word. >Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed. > >If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement >on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting. > > > >If you are able to review the document >(re-attached for convenience) and provide any >input over the next 24 hours or so, that will be very helpful. > > > >Thank-you, > > > > > > > >Jonathan & Lise > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] UPDATED: CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #82 - Tuesday, 2 February @ 06:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 1, 2016

Feb. 1, 2016

Please note an updated agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] UPDATED: CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #82 - Tuesday, 2 February @ 06:00 UTC Hello all, In preparation for your call #82 <https://community.icann.org/x/4wh1Aw> Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 06:00 08:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting& iso=20160202T06&p1=1440&ah=2> ), see below the updated proposed agenda: Agenda for CCWG ACCT Meeting #82 (Tuesday 2 February at 06:00 UTC) 1. Opening Remarks 2. 3rd Reading on Recommendation #11 -- GAC Advice 3. Final readings on Recommendations that required CWG-Stewardship feedback: · Recommendation #4a --Budget · Recommendation #4c -- Community IRP & Separation Process · Recommendation #7 -- Scope of IRP. 4. 3rd reading on Recommendation #9 -- AOC Reviews 5. 4th Reading on Recommendation #5 -- Mission 6. Timeline & Communication 7. AOB 8. Closing Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Two agendas -- your attention please!
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 1, 2016

Feb. 1, 2016

Ladies and gentlemen of the CWG-Stewardship, On this fine Monday, I have the wonderful opportunity of sending you two agendas: one for the CCWG-Accountability call on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC and one indicative agenda for our CWG-Stewardship call on Thursday at 16:00 UTC. Why you ask? On their Tuesday call, the CCWG-Accountability will be conducting its final readings on three recommendations that relate to the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. There may be some of you interested in these final readings, so we have provided the agenda below. After the CCWG-Accountability call, I will circulate an updated tracker (and any available documents) to the CWG-Stewardship list for the group to review. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs have discussed an indicative agenda for the Thursday call (also below), but reserve the right to, if needed, update the agenda or provide a more detailed agenda following the Tuesday CCWG-Accountability call. Documents for the CCWG-Accountability work can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report. At this time, there are no new documents for Recommendations 4 and 7 related to the IANA Budget and the IRP. If these are circulated before the CCWG-Accountability call, I will send them to this list. Otherwise, I will forward them as soon as they are posted. CCWG-Accountability Agenda **Please note that it is possible that the order of the agenda items will change. If that is the case, I will circulate an updated agenda to this list. ** > At 31/01/2016, Brenda Brewer wrote: > >> Dear all, >> In preparation for your call #82 <https://community.icann.org/x/4wh1Aw> >> Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 06:00 08:00 UTC ( time converter >> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&i >> so=20160202T06&p1=1440&ah=2> ), see below a proposed agenda: >> Agenda for CCWG ACCT Meeting #82 (Tuesday 2 February at 06:00 UTC) >> 1. Opening Remarks >> 2. Final readings on Recommendations that required CWG-Stewardship feedback: >> · Recommendation #4a --Budget >> · Recommendation #4c -- Community IRP & Separation Process >> · Recommendation #7 -- Scope of IRP. >> 3. [Provisional]: Final reading on Recommendation #9 -- AOC Reviews >> 4. [Provisional]: Final reading Recommendation #4b -- Board removal >> liability mitigation >> 5. 4th Reading on Recommendation #5 -- Mission >> 6. 3rd Reading on Recommendation #11 -- GAC Advice >> 7. Timeline & Communication >> 8. AOB >> 9. Closing >> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ >> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/> >> >> Thank you! >> Kind regards, >> Brenda CWG-Stewardship [indicative] Agenda (to be confirmed on Wednesday around 18:00 UTC): 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Update 3. IANA IPR 4. CCWG-Accountability 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks Please let me know if you have any questions, Grace

1 0

CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

All, We have received a direct request (see below) from the CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs for further guidance with respect to the application of the IRP to the actions (or inactions) of PTI. Moreover, we have had input from Sidley via the Client Committee as follows: “Sidley spoke with Becky Burr from CCWG today regarding the CWG dependency for an IRP process. Based on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) – or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required? By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal.” So the essential question is: A. Is an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) sufficient? OR B. In addition to such an ICANN bylaw, is a separate process also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues? If B above, what type of process is necessary? As discussed in our CWG meeting yesterday, it will be particularly helpful if when responding to the above, you provide a rationale for your response. In addition, if possible, please make reference to (and be consistent with) the prior work of this CWG Stewardship (such as our proposal in response to the RFP from the ICG). Given that the request from the CCWG Co-Chairs indicates their need to close this item by 28 January, we need to discuss this soon. Accordingly, we request that you provide input ASAP and, in any event, by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship From: Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] Sent: 21 January 2016 17:05 To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org Subject: CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP Sent on behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan, This is to inform you that further to our call #79, the CCWG-ACCT seeks the CWG-Stewardship’s guidance on the two proposed approaches that were suggested to address the dependency that relates to PTI compliance through the Independent Review Process (IRP) i.e.: 1. Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction; 2. Oblige ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do is covered by IRP. We are currently in the final stages of discussion to issue our supplemental report and would need to close this item by 28 January. Any prompt feedback you could send us would be much appreciated. We look forward to your guidance. Thank you Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

8 27

FW: IANA Budget and CCWG-Accountability proposal - CWG-Stewardship changes
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

All, Please be aware of the recent work that has been done in collaboration between CWG Stewardship / CCWG Accountability regarding the “IANA Budget”. It seems to be comprehensive and address the concern it was intended to deal with. One option is to create a checkpoint during the implementation in order to ensure the requirements (of the CWG) are being met in the actiual implementation. If you do have any further input or thoughts, please provide ASAP as this will be discussed and possibly finalised at today’s meeting of the CCWG Accountability (19h00 UTC, 26 January 2016). Thank-you. Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 26 January 2016 00:21 To: fuhr(a)etno.eu; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Subject: IANA Budget and CCWG-Accountability proposal - CWG-Stewardship changes Hi all Please find attached a marked up version of Recommendation 4 on the IANA and ICANN Budget veto power. This document includes tracked changes from Jordan Carter, WP1 Rapporteur in the CCWG. The changes are intended to take into account feedback from the CWG-Stewardship's Chuck Gomes, forwarded to us by the CWG Co-Chairs. Jonathan Zuck and I as leads on budget discussions were asked to talk through the feedback and agree what should happen next. I met with Jonathan and Chuck this morning to talk through the written feedback from Chuck and we're all happy that the proposed changes attached are fit for purpose. The CWG-Stewardship's feedback boiled down to wanting more clarity about the IANA Functions Operator's budget process. I have tried in the tracked changes to clarify what a caretaker budget feels like (as the CWG sought some more detail), and emphasise that the current quite-good consultation processes for all Budget creation will be put in the bylaws (clarifying that this will also apply to the IANA Budget). In respect of further detail about timing of the IANA Functions Budget, I am not comfortable with the CCWG-Accountability defining this. We in the CCWG have done our job in creating a structure for accountability in respect of the IANA Budget. I believe it is up to the CWG-Stewardship, either through its Design Teams approach or in the implementation project, to go any further in defining detail about the planning process (how a Budget is created, the timing of approval, etc). It isn't the CCWG's area of expertise or responsibility. If there are concerns about ensuring that such planning was taken into account, we could explore the concept of a reverse conditionality -- we could state in our report that our requirements are met only when CWG-Stewardship's work here is completed to its satisfaction. This item is on the agenda for CCWG-Accountability on Tuesday between 19h and 22h. Happy to expand or discuss. Happy also for this message to be forwarded to the CWG or to the CCWG by the relevant co-chairs or staff, or anyone else who feels so inclined! best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet

1 0

FW: [client com] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Forwarding the email below to the general CWG-Stewardship mailing list. From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:07 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP Dear Client Committee, We wanted to flag for you a recent discussion on the CCWG list serve relating to the CWG requirement for an IRP process to cover PTI actions/inactions. The email chain is pasted below and includes input from Greg and Avri. Also, below is the language from the final CWG comment letter to CCWG on this point. We believe the approach highlighted in yellow could be a workable solution. ³As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed.² As counsel to CCWG, we have a call with Becky Burr from CCWG on this topic tomorrow. If there is any additional guidance that CWG would like to provide on this topic beyond what was included in the comment letter, could you please let us know? Best regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgOn Behalf OfBurr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:42:41 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Schaefer, Brett; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP I am willing to address this issue either way here. We just need clarification from the CWG as to its preference. Either we create a stand-alone standard of review (in which case I need help articulating) or we say (in the Bylaws) that ICANN is responsible for ensuring that PTI gets it right, and allow challenges via the IRP on the basis of ICANN¹s actions or inactions that fall below this standard. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF- g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=1 xdOjghwOaRYcxDPTuhZkMCTD7eRwKXzUuTnQOV8IMo&s=xy01Bx-Fh__bSI6ZDFiOqvA0_GlpT0j Ry5DUdZh1uvw&e=> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:45 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP I agree and would add that DIDP appeals, although they potentially could involve a bylaws violation I suppose, would most often involve an independent review via IRP of the original decision to ensure that it was correct. It seems that the IRP is being stretched in the borrowing. At the very least, there needs to be clarification that on how the IRP should handle these matters if it is the proper vehicle and, if it is not, what exactly should be created to handle these matters. From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:36 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP Avri, I agree with your analysis and share your concern. The PTI IRP is fundamentally not a Bylaws issue (or more accurately -- fundamentally not a "violation of the Bylaws" issue). Having "borrowed" the IRP in an attempt to fill the requirements of the CWG, we can't then pretend that the requirements of the CWG are coterminous with the general design of the IRP. The CWG's requirements will require a specific statement of the basis on which a claim may be brought -- and it is a different basis than for other IRP claims. This doesn't have to be long, but it does have to be right. Conversely, if we are truly wedded to the idea that the IRP is a "bylaws court" and nothing more, then it can't be used to satisfy the CWG's requirement and we will need to do something else. Personally, I don't endorse this position (though it does raise some concern about the ability of the panel to deal with PTI failures, if it is designed to be a bylaws court. That said, I have sufficient faith in the skill of experienced arbitrators to be able to resolve a variety of disputes.) Since this a requirement for the transition, we need to resolve this crisply, explicitly and appropriately. Greg On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: Hi, I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new principles for the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the IRP, we need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before starting on its implementation. The CWG calls for: > 1. *Appeal mechanism*. An appeal mechanism, for example in > the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the > IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated > issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the > CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal > mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and > re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD > community post-transition. > I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone as By Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers' or CSC complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws, but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need to be. So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of filling the CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation issue. At least not yet. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru s&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDD kMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=hrS-SjNieBsQS3g-4IaOCu qnhva_tsA1TDs8a0zMOOQ&e=> BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ& c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zp JkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=VeYpm4OC3DluvWT6BqP7fLSRT7eOV0sSm 9Vw5RR91S4&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe 2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=L5e8VgjjxxQ3JnJo5baWM3AIcoofHz8l8EplNcQIZag&e=> **************************************************************************** ************************ This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************** ************************

3 2

Bylaws Clarifications for Sidley
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Dear all, On the call Thursday, we presented an updated version of the document that seeks to provide answers to the clarification notes in Sidley¹s draft Bylaws from 7 November. As a reminder, the process so far for preparing these responses has been as follows: * Sidley drafted Bylaws and delivered on 7 November (document attached). In the draft Bylaws, Sidley had highlighted areas that required clarification from the CWG. * Staff prepared a framework for responding to the Sidley notes. In this process, it became evident that the majority of the clarifications surrounded the work of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews). * The leads of the three DTs collaborated and provided initial responses to the notes (mid-December to early January). * Staff compiled and cleaned up the document, noting some areas that required resolution by the full CWG. The CWG is now tasked with reviewing this document so that responses can be provided to Sidley after our next call on 4 February. This work can be done via the mailing list by using the track changes¹ feature in Word. Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed. If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting. Please let me know if we can assist further, Grace

1 0

Tracking CCWG-Accountability Work
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, On our last CWG-Stewardship call, staff presented a tracking sheet to help monitor the work of the CCWG-Accountability on the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. While the majority of the dependencies have been met, Chuck and others on the CWG had noticed areas of improvement on the Budget section, and there was some discussion last week about the standard of the review for the IRP. Please take a look at the attached document and use this mailing list thread to present your assessment of whether or not the dependencies are being met. Per Matthew Shears¹ request, I have added a column on the right for comments and observations. Considering the timeline, the sooner feedback can be provided to the CCWG, the better. For your convenience, I have attached the latest versions of the relevant sections. For all CCWG-Accountability final report drafts, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report. As part of the discussion of the IRP, please refer to some analysis provided by Sidley to the Client Committee mailing list. The first email from Sharon is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000371.html. The second email is a follow-up after a conversation with Becky Burr regarding the IRP: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000373.html. I¹ve copied a key excerpt of this text below and cc¹ed Becky so that she can join the conversation if needed. ³{] Based on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required? By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal." Best, Grace

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #75 - 21 January 2016
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #75 on 21 January 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/WYxlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action item: CWG-Stewardship to consider the role of ICANN staff in the implementation of IANA IPR issues Action item: Staff to distribute CG tracking of CCWG work to the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship to review and provide input. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review current wording in relation to IRP for suitability and communicate feedback to the CCWG- Accountability as soon as possible. Chairs to circulate current wording to the list. Action item: Take input on list as to the requirements for the IPR consistent with prior work and recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability. Action item: Staff to circulate overview of questions and draft responses on the draft Bylaws to the CWG-Stewardship. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review document and provide input on list. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to ensure that bylaws derived from the work of the CWG-Stewardship are appropriately sized and fit for purpose. Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Primary objectives of the call are 1) update on implementation from ICANN staff, 2) confirming plan for IPR work, 3) co-ordination with CCWG-Accountability, 4) work on the Bylaws. * Call may not take 2 hours 2. Implementation Update * See slides provided by staff * May need to consider role of staff in the implementation of IANA IPR - could be considered under item 3 * What is the status of the collection of statistics to measure SLEs? Intended to be provided by the middle December - did not meet that deadline. Now foreseen for end of January (on track). Preliminary report from contractor is being reviewed by staff as it requests certain assumptions to be validated. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to consider the role of ICANN staff in the implementation of IANA IPR issues 3. IANA IPR * Discussed in December as well as previous meeting. Functional neutrality (owner must operate in such a way that control is not steered by one of the operational communities over the exclusion of others) deemed acceptable based on those discussions, not necessary to create a whole new entity, logical option is to use the IETF Trust provided no substantial issues emerge in the future. * Confirm that there are no objections to this approach. No objections received so the CWG-Stewardship will proceed on this basis. * Discuss how the different operational communities can collaborate on the implementation of this solution. Utilize the group that has been operating to co-ordinate on this topic consisting of representatives of the different operational communities, plus Greg and Chairs of CWG-Stewardship. Objective is to flesh out the principle and example terms under which the different communities would have their relationships with the IETF Trust in relation to IANA IPR. Group has agreed to make all of its future email conversations public. Notes of previous meetings have been circulated. Target is to reach agreement on high level principles in advance of submission of the ICG proposal to the NTIA. 4. CCWG-Accountability * Communicated to CCWG-Accountability that some issues that needed to be worked further including budget and appeal mechanisms. * CCWG-Accountability is working hard on these issues with staff tracking the implementation and review of CWG-Stewardship items. Intensive work plan from CCWG-Accountability has resulted in request to CWG-Stewardship Chairs to review progress. CWG-Stewardship have instead suggested to share the documents with the CWG-Stewardship list to allow for input by the whole group, noting that turnaround time is short. * Budget item has already had its second reading - 3 responses received from the group which all have been sent to the CCWG-Accountability. Chairs suggest that Chuck as Chair of DT-O connects with the CCWG-Accountability leads on this topic (Jordan Carter and Jonathan Zuck) who are now tasked with writing the revised language in the proposal. Chuck agreed to take on this task. * Staff is working on a document that is tracking the CWG-Stewardship requirements which was presented during the meeting. Consider adding a column on the end to be able to note concerns or suggestions. * Becky Burr has reached out to some of the RySG participants on the IRP question. Community needs to have the ability through the community mechanisms to use the IRP if the PTI does not deliver on its obligations. Proposed bylaw changes currently do not refer to PTI (that ICANN is required to enforce contract with PTI). Could consider suggesting making the language more specific. Critical to be clear on what requirements are, but need to be careful to not open this up to redesign, need to be consistent with original recommendations and escalation mechanisms provided - only if those do not work, independent review needs to be available. Action item: Staff to distribute CG tracking of CCWG work to the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship to review and provide input. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review current wording in relation to IRP for suitability and communicate feedback to the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible. Chairs to circulate current wording to the list. Action item: Take input on list as to the requirements for the IPR consistent with prior work and recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability. 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship * Design team leads contributed to the answers provided to Sidley where possible. Staff identified questions that were still left open and requiring CWG-Stewardship review. First reading of the document during this meeting, with second reading foreseen for the next meeting. * Risk to embody stuff in bylaws that should be dealt with elsewhere such as statement of work and contract between ICANN and PTI. * Answers to questions provide comprehensive view of the intended outcome - Sidley will review this and is expected to developed a slimmed down version of the Bylaws based on the input provided. Action item: Staff to circulate overview of questions and draft responses on the draft Bylaws to the CWG-Stewardship. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review document and provide input on list. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to ensure that bylaws derived from the work of the CWG-Stewardship are appropriately sized and fit for purpose. 6. AOB * Next meeting scheduled for Thursday 4 February at 16.00 UTC. * Update on status of replacement of ccNSO member? To be communicated shortly. 7. Closing Remarks

2 1