[Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 12:25:20 UTC 2015
Sabine,
I was forwarding these two email threads as background to question 4 in the
Agenda for today's Legal Subteam call. Please see my email immediately
prior to those two, where I suggested that this should be done. (I then
realized that, having suggested it, I should also do it.)
Greg
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, <Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de> wrote:
> Dear Greg, dear all,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure if compiling questions this way will help with keeping track
> of things in the long run (but I have yet to have my first cup of coffee
> this morning, so my views are anything but objective.) Would it be possible
> to start a document on the legal subteam wiki with the sole purpose of
> adding questions as they come up? That might help everyone in the CCWG
> seeing what questions have or have not been asked already.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sabine
>
>
>
> *Von:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org');>] *Im
> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. April 2015 07:43
> *An:* ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org');>
> *Betreff:* [Acct-Legal] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement -
> Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)
>
>
>
> Another fork of the thread.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"* <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de');>
> >
> Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March
> 2015)
> To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kierenmccarthy at gmail.com');>>, Jacob
> Malthouse <jacob at bigroom.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jacob at bigroom.ca');>>
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> >
>
>
> BTW, FIFA and IOC operate under Swiss legislation. Did it help?
>
> And for historians: The Geneva Option for the A Root Server was discussed
> within the Framework of the IAHC gTLD MoU (1997).
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> im Auftrag von Kieren McCarthy
> Gesendet: Fr 27.03.2015 00:42
> An: Jacob Malthouse
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March
> 2015)
>
>
> I do get the sense that a jurisdictional discussion is going to be a waste
> of valuable time at this point, especially when it comes to ICANN.
>
>
>
>
> There may be good sense in moving an IANA Contract Co. to Geneva at some
> future point (if that's the way this all goes) but to try to do so now when
> a transition requires U.S. Government sign off seems reckless and/ or
> pointless.
>
>
>
>
> It may be worth shifting to the other coast (Virginia would be pro ICANN)
> as a way to stop ICANN monkeying around with California law arguments, but
> with independent legal advice that blocking effort should also disappear.
>
>
>
>
> But realistically we are going to end up with a U.S. solution. Why bother
> pretending otherwise?
>
>
>
>
> I recall the previous two times the community looked at this whole issue.
> In fact I recall flying around the world and chewing up inordinate amounts
> of time on it (Geneva, Montevideo, can't remember where else). No one ever
> believed it would really happen and no one really cared that much either,
> except maybe the Russians.
>
>
>
>
> It's navel gazing frankly and I'd rather see more time spent on real
> accountability measures.
>
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jacob Malthouse <jacob at bigroom.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jacob at bigroom.ca');>>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm no lawyer, but as a layperson thinking about whether ICANN should
> stay
> > based in California or another jurisdiction, it strikes me that the only
> > way to think about this is by considering California law (or attorney
> > general's office) as a final accountability mechanism, and by then
> > exploring that via a stress test and/or then comparing it to other
> > jurisdictions. It makes me wonder if the attorney general of California
> > involved in this effort at all? Could they be? Perhaps as part of the
> > stress-testing.
> > Along those lines, even if you made an IRP binding on all parties, you'd
> > still have to explore what happens if an entity to tried to go to court
> > regardless, and then where that ends up via the courts.
> > I don't have a sense of cost/benefit here, other than California seems to
> > have a reputation for having a lot of lawsuits (for better or worse) and
> > those lawsuits tend to be expensive - though maybe not more so than
> > anywhere else in the USA - so it gets back to the question of whether we
> > have an accessible redress mechanism if ICANN is based in California vs
> > elsewhere in the USA vs elsewhere.
> > Looking at the litigation documents page, it looks like ICANN has been
> sued
> > pretty much all over the USA (
> > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en), which
> > might be seen as a reason to keep it based in the US, as over time the
> > precedents should help provide an additional layer of security against
> > improper lawsuits, whereas if you move it you'd be starting from scratch
> > presumably.
> > Best, Jacob.
> > Jacob Malthouse
> > Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
> > 778-960-6527
> > www.bigroom.ca
> > On 26 March 2015 at 09:48, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdelbianco at netchoice.org');>> wrote:
> >> Phil,
> >>
>
> >> That is not old ground, but rather ground we are now working
> diligently..
> >>
> >> The CCWG discussed how to bring all 4 AoC reviews into the bylaws this
> >> week in Istanbul. The 5th draft proposal is here
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%20Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v5%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425509039000&api=v2
> >,
> >> and I will update soon with suggestions that surfaced this week.
> >>
> >> The AoC is presently in full effect, so Review 9.3 will begin this year
> >> and staff is planning for it. You should count on that review beginning
> >> soon.
> >>
> >> As for registries disclosing wholesale prices, I think you know that an
> >> independent group would compile that data *without* identifying the
> >> registry.
>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> From: Phil Buckingham
> >> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM
> >> To: Steve DelBianco, 'Jordan Carter', 'Greg Shatan'
> >> Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community'
> >> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March
> >> 2015)
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sorry I'm playing catch up, having not been in Istanbul.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So what is the status on the AOC requirements, particular regarding 9.3
> (
> >> I think) - the review of Round 1 of the gTLD programme.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As I am sure you are aware, as a fellow partipicant on the
> Implementation
> >> Advisory Group , Consumer Choice , Consumer Trust and Competition ,
> that
> >> yesterday ICANN announced that a company had been selected to conduct
> >> (two) economic studies, to start immediately.
> >>
> >> The implications are huge for the new TLD Registries as they will have
> to
> >> disclose internal pricing of registrations and, quite frankly, most are
> not
> >> operationally ready.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One assumes that 9.3 would be an automatic transfer into the expanded
> >> ICANN bylaws.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, if I am going over old ground, already agreed in Istanbul.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil Buckingham
> >>
> >> CEO, Dot Advice Limited
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> >> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [
> >> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> >> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>>]
> *On Behalf Of *Steve
> >> DelBianco
> >> *Sent:* 26 March 2015 15:13
> >> *To:* Jordan Carter; Greg Shatan
> >> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
> >> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
> >> March 2015)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that either ICANN or NTIA may cancel the AoC
> >> <
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en?routing_type=path
> >
> >> with just 120 days notice. That's why we created Stress Test #14,
> which
> >> suggests the need to bring AoC commitments and Reviews into ICANN
> Bylaws..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Stress Test #14: *ICANN or NTIA choose to terminate the Affirmation of
> >> Commitments. (AoC) ICANN would no longer be held to its Affirmation
> >> commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required
> >> implementation of review team recommendations.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Existing Accountability Measures:*
> >>
> >> The AoC can be terminated by either ICANN or NTIA with 120 days notice.
> >>
> >> As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN feels pressure to
> >> maintain the AoC.
> >>
> >> But as a result of IANA stewardship transition, ICANN would no longer
> have
> >> the IANA contract as external pressure from NTIA to maintain the AoC .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Proposed Accountability Measures:*
> >>
> >> One proposed mechanism is community challenge to a board decision, such
> >> as referral to an Independent Review Panel (IRP) with the power to
> issue a
> >> binding decision. If ICANN canceled the AoC, the IRP mechanism could
> >> enable reversal of that decision.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Another proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN
> >> bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA. Bylaws would be
> >> amended to include AoC commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus the 4 periodic
> >> reviews required in paragraph 9, or other provisions that are deemed
> >> essential by the community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If ICANN's board proposed to amend the AoC provisions added to the
> bylaws,
> >> another proposed measure would empower the community to veto that
> proposed
> >> bylaws change.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> See all stress tests here
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v8%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426877855000&api=v2
> >
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >> Steve DelBianco
> >>
> >> Executive Director
> >>
> >> NetChoice
> >>
> >> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> >> http://blog.netchoice.org
> >>
> >> +1.703.615.6206
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From: *Jordan Carter
> >> *Date: *Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:37 AM
> >> *To: *Greg Shatan
> >> *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community
> >> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>
> >> March 2015)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Greg, Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am confident we are aware in the CCWG that we can't unilaterally amend
> >> the AOC. However, it is also clear that we can choose which bits we
> propose
> >> to incorporate in the ICANN Bylaws. Not incorporating some bits has no
> >> effect on the existing agreement between ICANN and the United States
> >> government.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would note that in respect of the jurisdiction conversation, we have a
> >> multistakeholder process at work in designing this transition.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the question of a "sealed for all time" jurisdiction question derails
> >> the transition - either by meaning the community can't accept ICANN
> being
> >> locked in California forever and thus declines to agree a transition, or
> >> the United States not accepting a transition that doesn't include that
> lock
> >> - then that will be the outcome of the multistakeholder process. The
> NTIA
> >> did not define perpetual U.S. presence as a requirement for the
> transition,
> >> after all.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Certainly I hope that this dilemma does not prove to be a breakdown
> point.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I say all the above as an individual who thinks the California
> >> jurisdiction works just fine for everything we need to do now, and can
> >> foresee for the future.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> Jordan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 26 March 2015 at 16:26, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I second Phil's email and hope that some clarity can be brought to those
> >> unable to participate in the entire CCWG meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I also want to remind the CCWG that ICANN cannot unilaterally amend the
> >> Affirmation of Commitments. The AoC can only be amended by mutual
> consent
> >> of the parties. The U.S. jurisdictional requirement will be there until
> >> amended by the parties, or the AoC is terminated. If we want to get
> into
> >> discussing terminating the AoC, that is a whole other discussion, and an
> >> immense step to consider.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Shatan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc at vlaw-dc.com');>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I see from the post below that this issue of ICANN's future
> jurisdiction
> >> has become "a most delicate matter" and remains unresolved and subject
> to
> >> further discussion within the CCWG.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a pivotal and very important issue, as the accountability
> >> mechanisms are being designed (with the assistance of two outside law
> >> firms) to be consistent with California law and may not operate
> effectively
> >> within another legal jurisdiction context. Further, if there is not a
> >> commitment to remain within US jurisdiction for the foreseeable future
> (as
> >> CEO Chehade pledged in Congressional testimony last month) it will raise
> >> significant political barriers to NTIA approval of and Congressional
> >> acquiescence to a final transition and accountability package.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For those of us unable to participate remotely in all the CCWG
> discussions
> >> earlier this week, it would be most appreciated if more specificity
> could
> >> be provided as soon as possible as to what the various perspectives are
> on
> >> this matter and how it is proposed to resolve them, since the final
> >> determination would seem to be a rather binary decision - either the AOC
> >> provision committing to US jurisdiction is incorporated within the
> Bylaws,
> >> or it is not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> >> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
> >>
> >> *Virtualaw LLC*
> >>
> >> *1155 F Street, NW*
> >>
> >> *Suite 1050*
> >>
> >> *Washington, DC 20004*
> >>
> >> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
> >>
> >> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
> >>
> >> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:
> >> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Thomas
> >> Rickert
> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:22 AM
> >> *To:* Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> >> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
> >> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
> >> March 2015)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Pedro,
> >>
> >> you are correct. We should have mentioned that we discussed it. As this
> is
> >> a most delicate matter and since we agree we would suggest language to
> >> frame the next steps (you will remember we had not agreed on concrete
> >> language), I suggest we use the next upcoming opportunity to share the
> >> progress with the community when we have an agreed language on the
> matter.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your understanding and for your thoughtful contributions
> during
> >> the meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 26.03.2015 um 11:17 schrieb Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <
> >> pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br');>>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Alice, CCWG-colleagues,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the links. I just regret the fact that the CoChairs have
> missed
> >> to refer to the important debate the CCWG has held with respect to the
> way
> >> moving forward on the issue of jurisdiction. As Mathieu Weill mentioned
> >> during the second day, this is one of the main issues of concern of
> >> individuals outside this group and I believe the community deserved at
> >> least to be briefly informed about this subject.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pedro
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [
> >> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> em nome de Alice Jansen
> >> [alice.jansen at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alice.jansen at icann.org');>]
> >> *Enviado:* quarta-feira, 25 de março de 2015 12:13
> >> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> >> *Assunto:* [CCWG-ACCT] Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> This is to inform you that the CoChairs statement (pasted below) may
> be
> >> found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en
> >>
> >> A video interview with CoChair Thomas Rickert is also available - see:
> >> ICANN Accountability: From Singapore to Istanbul
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE>
> >>
> >> These links will be added to your wiki pages.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Alice
> >>
> >>
> >> CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Statement Istanbul, 25 March 2015 |
> Thomas
> >> Rickert, León Sánchez & Mathieu Weill
> >>
> >> Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on
> >> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability>
> met
> >> in Istanbul, Turkey, on 23-24 March 2015.
> >>
> >> The meeting
> >> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> was
> >> attended in-person by 42 members and participants. A number of
> participants
> >> and observers joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting
> room..
> >> Three Advisors
> >> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors> also
> >> participated.
> >>
> >> Guided by the four basic building blocks
> >> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Building+Blocks>
> identified
> >> at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the group further discussed and refined
> >> accountability mechanisms that need to be either implemented or, at
> least,
> >> committed to before the transition of the IANA stewardship can take
> place.
> >>
> >> The meeting made progress on three main areas:
> >>
> >> · Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values;
> >>
> >> · Strengthening the existing independent review process;
> >>
> >> · Mechanisms for community empowerment.
> >>
> >> Specifically, the group discussed changes that should be made to the
> >> Mission and Core Values inICANN's Bylaws. For example, the group
> discussed
> >> how key provisions of the Affirmation of Commitments
> >> <
> https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>
> (AoC)
>
> >> could be reflected into the Bylaws.
> >>
> >> Additionally, the group worked on strengthening the existing independent
> >> review process suggesting improvements to its accessibility and
> >> affordability, and discussed process design including establishment of a
> >> standing panel with binding outcomes and panel composition (diversity
> >> etc.). The IRP panel decisions would be guided by ICANN's Mission and
> Core
> >> Values.
> >>
> >> With regards to mechanisms for community empowerment, the group
> identified
> >> powers and associated mechanisms including the ability to:
> >>
> >> · recall the ICANN Board of Directors;
> >>
> >> · approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws, Mission and
> >> Core Values;
> >>
> >> · reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and budget, where the
> >> Board has failed to appropriately consider community input.
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability supported the concept of a Fundamental Bylaw
> that
> >> would provide additional robustness to key provisions. The Fundamental
> >> Bylaw would apply to:
> >>
> >> · the mission;
> >>
> >> · the independent review process;
> >>
> >> · the power to veto Bylaw changes;
> >>
> >> · new community powers such as recall of the Board and the right
> >> of the community to veto certain Board actions.
> >>
> >> Changes to the Fundamental Bylaws would require high standards for
> >> approval by the community.
> >>
> >> The notion of an empowered community involved discussion of community
> >> representation, i.e. who constitutes the community. The
> >> CCWG-Accountability is also aware that to wield these new powers, the
> >> community, however it is constituted, must itself meet high standards of
> >> accountability. ICANN's accountability would also be enhanced by
> ensuring
> >> its operations and processes are more globally inclusive.
> >>
> >> The group has engaged two law firms to provide independent legal advice
> >> and confirm feasibility of the suggested frameworks. The firms are
> Adler &
> >> Colvin and Sidley & Austin.
> >>
> >> As work progresses, all recommendations will be subject to the stress
> >> tests against contingencies already identified. The stress test
> methodology
>
> >> has been successfully tested against the draft accountability
> mechanisms..
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability is confident that their proposed mechanisms will
> >> satisfy the needs of the CWG-Stewardship1
> >> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftn1> as they
> >> look to stronger accountability protections. The CCWG-Accountability and
> >> CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs met to update and fully brief each other on
> the
> >> progress made so far. They outlined key areas of accountability that the
> >> CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs considered are most relevant for the
> current
> >> and ongoing work of the CWG-Stewardship. The CCWG-Accountability
> Co-Chairs
> >> will brief the CWG-Stewardship in the opening part of their face-to-face
> >> meeting on Thursday, 26 March.
> >>
> >> *Next Steps:*
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability will continue refining its recommendations. The
> >> community is expected to provide feedback during a public comment
> period to
> >> be held before ICANN 53, Buenos Aires meeting. The results of the
> public
> >> comment period will inform further deliberations during that meeting.
> >>
> >> The group is developing an engagement plan to ensure its proposals are
> >> widely known and understood, and to encourage comprehensive response to
> >> proposals during the public comment period.
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs recognize the outstanding volunteer
> work
> >> that has produced these substantive proposals in a very short period of
> >> time. The community's effort has been exceptional.
> >>
> >> *About the CCWG-Accountability*
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability was established to ensure that ICANN's
> >> accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet
> >> community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of the historical
> >> relationship with the U.S. Government.
> >>
> >> The group has divided its work into two work streams (WS):
> >>
> >> · WS1 is focused on identifying mechanisms
> >> enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to
> within
> >> the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
> >>
> >> · WS2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which a
> >> timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend
> beyond
> >> the IANA Stewardship Transition.
> >>
> >> The CCWG-Accountability consists of 177 people
> >> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823970>,
> >> organized as 26 members
> >> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>,
> >> appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, 151
> participants
> >> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>,
> who
> >> participate as individuals, and 46 mailing list observers
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Mailing+List+Observers>.
> >> The group also includes one ICANN Board liaison, one ICANN staff
> >> representative, and one former ATRT member who serves as a liaison. In
> >> addition, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the
> >> CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two
> >> groups.
> >> Seven Advisors <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en>
> have
> >> also been appointed to contribute research and advice, and to bring
> >> perspectives on global best practices to enrich the CCWG-Accountability
> >> discussion.
> >> The CCWG-Accountability is an open group: anyone interested in the work
> of
> >> the CCWG-Accountability, can join as a participant or observers.
> >> Participants or observers may be from a chartering organization, from a
> >> stakeholder group or organization not represented in the
> >> CCWG-Accountability or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed.
> >>
> >> For more information on the CCWG-Accountability or to view meeting
> >> archives and draft documents, please refer to their dedicated wiki
> >> <
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability
> >
> >> .
> >>
> >> A video interview with CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Thomas Rickert can
> be
> >> seen here <ICANN Accountability: From Singapore to Istanbul
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE>>.
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftnref1>
> Cross
> >> Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition
> >> Proposal on Naming Related Functions
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date:
> 03/13/15
> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jordan Carter
> >>
> >> Chief Executive
> >> *InternetNZ*
> >>
> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> >> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
> >> Skype: jordancarter
> >>
> >> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan at lawabel.com');>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150401/2f781993/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ccwg-accountability5
mailing list