Yes, Martin. Please also confirm that the "accountability processes" are those of ICANN or related to ICANN. Thanks! Rinalia On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

Thanks Rinalia: yes, on re-reading I think that this does seem to have lost something in translation! I guess it is the process that needs to be independent of the IANA functions operator, not the accountability itself. So if we said,

1. “*Independence of accountability*: accountability *processes* should be independent of the IANA Functions Operator and should assure the accountability of the Operator to the inclusive global multistakeholder community;”

would this work, or am I missing something else?

Best

Martin

*From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] *Sent:* 05 March 2015 03:19 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* CWG Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Hi.

I find 5.ii not easy to understand. Can the text be improved for clarity?

Thanks.

Rinalia

On Mar 5, 2015 7:59 AM, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

Hi all,

And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii).

The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening!

I propose that we look to:

· Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9.

· See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable.

· See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable.

· In the light of Maarten’s comment on 5.vi, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable.

· See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets.

· See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable.

· See if Stephanie’s proposal for 10 is acceptable.

If we have time I’d like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii. However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow’s call.

Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow.

Martin

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi Rinalia. I think this is associated with the discussion with Avri. I’m not sure we should say whose accountability processes we are talking about in high level principles. Building on the known or getting a common basis for accountability is certainly an attractive approach – it makes things easier to understand, for example – I think we do need to allow the CWG and/or the CCWG to decide what is the appropriate independent accountability process. Best Martin From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] Sent: 05 March 2015 09:47 To: Martin Boyle Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Yes, Martin. Please also confirm that the "accountability processes" are those of ICANN or related to ICANN. Thanks! Rinalia On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Thanks Rinalia: yes, on re-reading I think that this does seem to have lost something in translation! I guess it is the process that needs to be independent of the IANA functions operator, not the accountability itself. So if we said, 1. “Independence of accountability: accountability processes should be independent of the IANA Functions Operator and should assure the accountability of the Operator to the inclusive global multistakeholder community;” would this work, or am I missing something else? Best Martin From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>] Sent: 05 March 2015 03:19 To: Martin Boyle Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Hi. I find 5.ii not easy to understand. Can the text be improved for clarity? Thanks. Rinalia On Mar 5, 2015 7:59 AM, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Hi all, And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii). The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening! I propose that we look to: • Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9. • See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable. • See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable. • In the light of Maarten’s comment on 5.vi<http://5.vi>, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable. • See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets. • See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable. • See if Stephanie’s proposal for 10 is acceptable. If we have time I’d like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii. However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow’s call. Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow. Martin _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Works for me --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 4:36 AM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Thanks Rinalia: yes, on re-reading I think that this does seem to have lost something in translation! I guess it is the process that needs to be independent of the IANA functions operator, not the accountability itself. So if we said, 1. “Independence of accountability: accountability processes should be independent of the IANA Functions Operator and should assure the accountability of the Operator to the inclusive global multistakeholder community;” would this work, or am I missing something else? Best Martin From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] Sent: 05 March 2015 03:19 To: Martin Boyle Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Hi. I find 5.ii not easy to understand. Can the text be improved for clarity? Thanks. Rinalia On Mar 5, 2015 7:59 AM, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Hi all, And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii). The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening! I propose that we look to: • Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9. • See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable. • See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable. • In the light of Maarten’s comment on 5.vi<http://5.vi>, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable. • See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets. • See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable. • See if Stephanie’s proposal for 10 is acceptable. If we have time I’d like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii. However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow’s call. Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow. Martin _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Thanks Avri, I'm not sure I really understand what ICANN accountability would mean in this footnote. Surely the important thing would be to define the rules for the various structures we put in place to avoid unintended consequences of one or more stakeholders being able to control outcomes? And then the rules might be different depending on the nature of the committee/group/process/whatever. Does that make sense? I do note that my e-mail last night (I blame it on the late hour) I put 5.iv as a "second reading" (ie for clearing previously agreed text). Of course this is relatively new text and so should be done as a separate point - perhaps along with 5.iii where there is a proposal for a change. Sorry for this. Best Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 05 March 2015 07:11 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Hi, One small comment: p1 would be required to achieve consensus. Since consensus is such a loose term, might be good to specify 'ICANN Consensus', which is process dependent and is not full consensus, as opposed to just consensus. thanks avri On 04-Mar-15 23:58, Martin Boyle wrote: Hi all, And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii). The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening! I propose that we look to: * Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9. * See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable. * See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable. * In the light of Maarten's comment on 5.vi, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable. * See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets. * See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable. * See if Stephanie's proposal for 10 is acceptable. If we have time I'd like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii. However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow's call. Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow. Martin _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>

Sorry, I meant ICANN consensus. I still think it is something for us to define for the different mechanisms we put in place. From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: 05 March 2015 11:00 To: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Thanks Avri, I'm not sure I really understand what ICANN accountability would mean in this footnote. Surely the important thing would be to define the rules for the various structures we put in place to avoid unintended consequences FWIW, Martin, she proposed "ICANN consensus" not "ICANN accountability." ICANN consensus simply makes it a more well-defined term Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

Elise I know it is an important issue for GAC, but it is also an important issue for the global Internet community. As part of that, I don't think the GAC's language here is acceptable: , nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I would have to challenge the statement that there should be no limits on a government's demands and that IANA must passively respond to _any_ request made by the relevant government. Doesn't this contradict RFC 1591, which makes the ccTLD operator a trustee for _both_ the national and the global internet community. I think the reason for this is that people did not want to make a ccTLD a political football that changes with any change in local political fortunes. One can respect national sovereignty over policy but one must also respect one's obligations to the global internet community.

I know it is there! It represents the GAC's preferences, it does not represent anything binding for this group. --MM From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 6:56 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle; CWG Stewardship Cc: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org Subject: SV: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Milton - you are referring to the GAC Communique from Singapore. It can be discussed, but its already there :) Elise Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sendt: 5. mars 2015 12:52 Til: Lindeberg, Elise; Martin Boyle; CWG Stewardship Kopi: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft Elise I know it is an important issue for GAC, but it is also an important issue for the global Internet community. As part of that, I don't think the GAC's language here is acceptable: , nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I would have to challenge the statement that there should be no limits on a government's demands and that IANA must passively respond to _any_ request made by the relevant government. Doesn't this contradict RFC 1591, which makes the ccTLD operator a trustee for _both_ the national and the global internet community. I think the reason for this is that people did not want to make a ccTLD a political football that changes with any change in local political fortunes. One can respect national sovereignty over policy but one must also respect one's obligations to the global internet community.

Hi, I hesitate to mention this as it may be seen as pedantic and can potentially be distracting, but since we're talking about underpinning principles and criteria, one point that I think needs to be made very clear:

In this light, I would read the GAC communiqué text not as saying that the IANA functions operator must obey any instruction given by a government (who issued the instruction? What was the authority that it had to do so?), but that the [FOIWG report] should not prevent the IANA functions operator from acting in line with a legitimate request, properly made and where the final battle has happened. I wasn¹t there, of course, when the communiqué was drafted, so I will have to rely on Elise for chapter and verse on what the text conveys for her and her government.

To state the obvious, the IANA Function Operator (in conjunction with the Root Zone Maintainer) have direct operational impact on the operations of the DNS. The instructions given by governments MUST NOT (to use IETF phrasing) have negative impact on those operations. For example, due to the way DNSSEC works, it is possible that a misconfiguration of a TLD, e.g., as directed by well-meaning but perhaps not fully technically astute government employees, can have direct impact on the operation of the root zone as a whole (specifically, a class of misconfigurations can significantly increase the load on the root servers). The IANA Function Operator must be allowed to reject requests that threaten the stability of the DNS. That is, the phrase "the IANA functions operator must obey any instruction" is not in the best interests of the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet's DNS. The "any" part of that must be limited to those instructions that do not have negative impact on the global DNS. Regards, -drc