<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hello Thomas,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I like the style of writing. I think a relatively short Exec briefing of the form below will be very helpful for the ICANN community
as well as those outside of that community that have an interest in the topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Bruce Tonkin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas Rickert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 15 September 2015 6:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] narrative - a first attempt<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">we have discussed that we need to work on our messaging and document more what we have done. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have tried to write up an introduction to such document, which focuses more on what we build on and keep rather than on the changes. This is meant to start our discussion on how to present our work. At the end, you will only find headings
where our work results need to be explained. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you know, the content of the document will need to be rephrased depending on what our final recommendations will look like. Nonetheless, we need to start working on this now.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thomas <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The Multi Stakeholder Model is what makes ICANN unique and successful in managing a global resource that is essential for running the Internet. Security, stability and resiliency of the
Internet unique Identifiers System are the focus of ICANN’s efforts. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Since ICANN’s inception, the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, who form the ICANN community, have developed and matured the policy development processes that, when necessary,
set the rules that balance the interests of market players, end users and policy makers. The policy development includes public comment periods to ensure all interested parties globally can be heard and that their suggestions can be incorporated. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Until today, the US Government has played a key stewardship role in ICANN’s governance. Not only has it obliged ICANN of its duty to regularly review and improve its accountability and
transparence, but it also had the opportunity to find another contractor for the IANA functions. While the US government never had to make use of this power, its role has been rightfully characterized as a backstop by many. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The CCWG Accountability has been tasked with working on consensus recommendations to enhance ICANN’s accountability for a post-transition era and to offer accountability enhancements that
efficiently safeguard ICANN against contingencies, i.e. to replace the historic relationship with the US Government. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The CCWG Accountability has analyzed carefully the accountability mechanisms that already exist in ICANN. It has carefully analyzed community input as well as criteria published by NTIA
for accountability enhancements and transformed those to a list of requirements for improving ICANN’s accountability. Is has then considered different models and measures to implement and operationalize these requirements, it has listened to the advice of
independent experts on corporate governance and accountability as well as independent legal advisers. It has discussed the pros and cons of different models and now suggests accountability enhancements that require least change, least unintended consequences
while fulfilling the accountability requirements to the best possible extent. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">By nature, the focus of the group’s work was on identifying the need for change or amendment. However, it is important to also highlight what the group did not change. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- Policy development in ICANN as well as the adoption of policies by the ICANN Board remain unaltered.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- The unique advisory role of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the interaction on such advice with the ICANN Board remains unaltered.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- The structure, decision-making and way SOs and ACs operate, remains unaltered.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- The balance of power of the SOs and ACs is maintained.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">In order to preserve ICANN’s bottom-up, community-driven multi stakeholder approach, the recommended accountability enhancements include:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- specifying ICANN’s role and mission and make it more robust against change to avoid mission creep and keep ICANN focused on its current mission</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- perpetuating the ATRT reviews required by ICANN’s current Affirmation of Commitment with the US Government, to ensure ICANN continuously works on its improvement</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- enhancing the Independent Review Process as an independent judiciary assessing whether ICANN operates in compliance or in violation of its bylaws. While strengthening this process the
CCWG ensured that the IRP would not be empowered to circumvent the bottom-up nature of the policy processes. The IRP powers are strictly limited to confirming or cancelling ICANN’s decisions and it has no mandate to enforce specific outcomes on these decisions.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">These enhancements shall provide a basement and framework of enhanced trust and clear limits of what the organization can and cannot do. They ensure that ICANN follows the multi stakeholder
model and follows bottom-up consensus-driven processes. In case of issues and contingencies, the CCWG has worked on a nuanced repertoire of community powers so that the community can choose the least invasive measure in case of alleged or actual wrongdoings.
While all of the community powers could ultimately be enforced in court, the group has installed safeguards to make it highly unlikely this will ever be necessary. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The community powers and the escalation processes for these are very nuanced to ensure they cannot be abused by individual groups or interests.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Additionally, there is only a limited number of community powers. These 5 powers are relating to the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- budget, strategic and operating plan</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- changing standard bylaws</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- changing fundamental bylaws, i.e. those bylaws that shall be made more robust against change (e.g. the mission, commitments and core values)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- removing individual directors and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- recalling the entire board</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Four out of five community powers only provide the community with a right to jointly exercise a right to ask the Board to redo a board decision or to veto a decision. Under no circumstances
can the Community take decisions itself, let alone overturn the bottom up policy processes. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The ICANN Board already engages with the community before adopting a budget. The ICANN Board already engages with the community before it adopts changes to bylaw provisions. This approach
remains the same and it will rather be strengthened as an efficient consultation decreases the need for the community to step in after a resolution has been passed. The Community would only need to step in case, for instance, the Board adopts a budget that
does not sufficiently fund the operation of the IANA functions, or if a strategic plan approves new activities inconsistent with ICANN’s Mission.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Before a community power can be exercised, at least one of ICANN’s existing structures (SOs or ACs) are required to petition for it. Also, different thresholds of support for the execution
of the community power are required. A higher degree of community consent is required for recalling the entire board than for vetoing a strategic plan. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The only community power that prevents the board from taking a decision before obtaining community approval is related to changes to fundamental bylaws. The CCWG Accountability is of the
opinion that changes to ICANN’s mission, commitments and core values or changes to the independent review process, amongst others, i.e. the main pillars of ICANN’s accountability and governance, shall not be changed without very strong consensus within the
Board as well as within the community. While mission creep needs to be prohibited, there might be the need for ICANN to adjust to a changing environment. However, the cornerstones of what grants security, stability and resilience of the DNS must get special
protection.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">What is common for all community powers is that the level of support for the execution of a community power must always be close to what would be called „rough consensus“ in a consensus
call. Only it is more specified by embracing this notion in a voting scheme giving all existing groups the same level of relative influence as they have today. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">As explained above the voting scheme proposed by the CCWG only happens in extreme cases, as a last resort check and balance, and is not empowered to replace the bottom up, consensus based
processes that is at the basis of ICANN’s core processes. After community wide discussion has taken place, the voting happens within the existing, well tested SO and AC structures, thus avoiding the creation of any new body.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Finally, the SO and ACs themselves will be subject to regular reviews of their accountability and transparency practices, to ensure that they remain accountable to the communities they
are designed to represent. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">In sum, the community powers do replace the backstop the US Government has provided so far. These need to be made enforceable as a matter of last resort. In order to make them fully enforceable,
a legal person is required for the community to be used as a vehicle for exercising the community powers. Again, the CCWG Accountability is building on existing structures. ICANN is incorporated as a membership organization, but currently does not have any
members. Therefore, the CCWG Accountability recommends</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- to rely on ICANN’s existing strucure as a membership organization rather than changing it,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- to only have the community as the one and only member, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- to ensure no part of the community gets exceeding rights (either by the ability of pushing through their individual interests or blocking community consensus), and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">- to ensure the community can only jointly exercise rights, mostly based on consensus.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Hence no single SO or AC can exercise community powers or other statutory rights. The community as a whole is empowered to replace the role of the US Government. The CCWG Accountability
believes that this truly empowers the Multi Stakeholder Model, relying on each stakeholders within existing and tested structures, in their respective roles. Even more, the CCWG Accountability believes that this community driven model is the only eligible
candidate for replacing the historical relationship with the US Government. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Finally, it shall be noted that in order to ensure proper checks and balances and a division of powers amongst the legislative (community), executive (ICANN Board), constitution (bylaws)
and judiciary (IRP), enhancements to the accountability of the community are also suggested so that rogue players or interests inside the community cannot jeopardize ICANN and its operations.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The whole proposal, as further described has been legally assessed by two independent expert law firms and successfully stress tested against various contingencies. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">[here comes the part that we need to work on]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">In the following chapters, we present </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I. an overview of the proposed accountability enhancement,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">II. an explanation of each component recommendation for of the proposed accountability architecture</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">III. a rationale for </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">i. why we are suggesting the changes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">ii. what alternative solutions have been discussed</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">iii. why preference was given to the proposed solution</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">iv.. why we are suggesting the changes at this time</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">v. how we propose to deal with the interim phase until the accountability enhancements are fully implemented.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">IV. Omnibus volume of appendices and supporting documentation</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">In the appendices, you find previous reports, legal assessments, the analysis of public comments received and information on the genesis of the proposed accountability enhancements.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>