[CCWG-Accountability] Focus on the mission

Tue Jan 6 14:03:38 UTC 2015

Dear Drew Noyes

One way by which discussions in pre-IANA transition work areas could be
kept confined to specific items is by creating Work Area 5 as proposed
earlier. That could be an area to gather inputs on long term proposals and
otherwise deflect what is argued to be out of scope for the present.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Drew Noyes <drewnoyes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Please lets move forward to do our job in keeping focused on improving
> ICCAN accountability rather than discussing the scope of ICCAN.
>
> If we want to be taken seriously and to make a difference we should do the
> tasks assigned to us from the beginning when we agreed to volunteer  for
> this group, rather than expanding our scope.
>
> My two cents worth.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Drew Noyes
> Managing Director
> One Stop Legal Services
> Pattaya Thailand
>
> www.onestoplegalservice.com
> On Jan 6, 2015 7:23 PM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
>
>>  Dear all,
>>
>>  In line with the reactions from James and Eberhard:
>> In my opinion, these questions as well as the ones that Paul formulated
>> earlier, have very little to do with improving ICANN’s accountability.
>> Rather, the implementations of the measures suggested by the questions
>> limit ICANN’s scope and tie the board with a very short leash. Making
>> accountability less relevant, because of the direct control and very narrow
>> scope. It’s one way of solving the issues at hand, but not one that is in
>> the interests of the community in the long run. I also think it’s not
>> realistic to assume that this is an option.
>>
>>  I understood our job to be in the area of advising on improving
>> existing and possibly introducing new accountability processes and
>> procedures. Not in the area of advising on the scope of ICANN. However, if
>> adequate accountability is assured, unwanted scope creep is impossible.
>>
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Roelof Meijer
>>
>>
>>
>> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
>> NETHERLANDS
>> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
>> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl
>>
>>   From: David Maher <dmaher at pir.org>
>> Date: zaterdag 3 januari 2015 19:30
>> To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
>>
>>    Every time a corporation executes a contract, it assumes obligations
>> and liabilities. If the board of the corporation believes in good faith
>> that the contract serves the interests of the corporation (and the contract
>> is not in violation of the corporate charter and bylaws), this is not
>> necessarily an abdication of its fiduciary responsibility.
>> The ICANN Board should be able to give this WG answers to the following
>> questions regarding  its willingness to accept contract terms along the
>> lines of:
>>
>> 1. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that are not supported by a demonstrated consensus among
>> affected parties?
>> 2. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that do not relate to issues the uniform resolution of
>> which is necessary to assure sound operation of the domain name system?
>> 3. Will ICANN agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that relate to online content or to online behavior that
>> does not threaten the sound operation of the domain name system?
>> 4. Will ICANN agree that any claim that it has not complied with the
>> previous three obligations may be brought by any adversely affected party
>> before an independent review panel that can issue decisions that are
>> binding on ICANN?
>>
>>
>>   David
>> David W. Maher
>> Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
>> Public Interest Registry
>> 312 375 4849
>>
>>
>>   From: JAMES BLADEL <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 10:09 PM
>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
>>
>>   Ive been following this thread as best I can, and believe Bruce and
>> Avri are on the right course.  If the Board has a legal & fiduciary
>> responsibility to ICANN the corporation, then this line of questioning
>> could be perceived as "under what circumstances/scenarios would you
>> willingly abdicate your fiduciary responsibility?"   I don't see how could
>> they possibly provide an answer that is useful to our work....
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>  J.
>> ____________
>> James Bladel
>> GoDaddy
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2015, at 09:21, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> My concern about asking the Board what they would decide is that it is
>> far to hypothetical for them to give any answer other than the one Bruce
>> offered.
>>
>> How can a Board give any answer other than the one that says, give us a
>> recommendation, lets get the community view and see how the 3/4 unfolds in
>> our discussions.
>>
>> Closer to being answerable is whether there is a legal way for them to do
>> what the CCWG might ask for.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 01-Jan-15 18:08, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for this question which is a very sensible one.  Let me try to
>> clarify what I am trying to accomplish by my proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a complete and firm support of Board accountability to the
>> Community.  That is 100% clear and I think you and I are in firm agreement
>> on that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I may, however, not be clear about my method and process.  From my
>> perspective the strongest accountability would be with a clear Bylaw
>> limitation on ICANN functionality and a provision for an outside arbiter.
>> Both of those changes would require Board approval.  I am not trying to
>> subordinate the CCWG to the Board.   Far from it – what I am trying to do
>> is find out as early in the process whether the Board is going to be
>> willing to agree to subordinate itself to the Community through those
>> mechanisms.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I think the place where you may misunderstand me is at the very end
>> of your note – where you say “why you want to limit CCWG to just follow
>> those areas of accountability that Board wishes?”   I think you are
>> assuming that if the Board said “no” to the questions I was asking that my
>> reaction would be to say “oh … oh well.  That is OK.  If the Board won’t
>> agree, we can’t do it.”
>>
>>
>>
>> My real reaction, in practice, would be exactly the opposite – I would
>> urge the Community to dig in for an extended discussion with the Board and
>> use my limited powers of persuasion to rally the community to demand that
>> the Board changed its mind.  J  And I would probably urge CCWG to
>> recommend those same things anyway – but at least we would do that knowing
>> what was going to happen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that help?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>>
>> 509 C St. NE
>>
>> Washington, DC 20002
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>> Link to my PGP Key
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:39 PM
>> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig
>> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> The way you commenting on the matter could have two different
>> interprétations or leave two different impressions:
>>
>> A) You are a firm supporter of accountabilty process when we note your
>> comments about Mathieu
>>
>> B) You wish to raise the question Under discussion to the Board asking
>> what they wish to see from CCWG and what they do not see from CCWG .The
>> latter interpretation ,in my view, seems to be subordinating CCWG to the
>> Board in the sense that we just study, elaborate and recoomend those area
>> of accountability that Board is comfortable with but not CCWG address the
>> full picture, objectives, requiremnets of accountability.
>>
>> Pls find a coherence between interpretation A) and interpretation B) .In
>> order words if you are really in favour of addressing the accountability in
>> a fullflege scope why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those areas of
>> accountability that Board wishes?
>> Thank you very much to clarify your position.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-01-01 21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>>
>>  Bruce is a wonderful man.  But we don’t need his opinion, we need a
>> formal commitment from the Board.  That’s why we need to ask the question
>> in an official manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked
>> with ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a
>> question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess
>> when/if it perceives such would be very limited.  If we are so unwilling to
>> even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.”
>>
>>
>>
>> In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of
>> WS1 has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight
>> mechanisms we might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong
>> result.
>>
>>
>>
>> Warm regards
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>>
>> 509 C St. NE
>>
>> Washington, DC 20002
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>> Link to my PGP Key
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM
>> *To:* Seun Ojedeji
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG.
>>
>> Still why there is a need that we  raise any such question to the Board,
>>
>>  Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Bruce,
>>
>> Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine
>> if those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is
>> more of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on
>> timing and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting
>> rights in this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not
>> be encouraging to have  implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board
>> majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the
>> earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better.
>>
>> Regards
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Seun,
>>
>> >>  I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome
>> especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law
>> modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making
>> process may be useful.
>>
>> In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have
>> previously been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams
>> associated with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review
>> Teams (ATRT)  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en .
>>
>> Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here:
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en
>>
>> Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows:
>>
>> - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG
>>
>> - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws
>>
>> - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment  (45 days)
>>
>> - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments  - a 2/3 majority of the
>> Board is required to make a bylaw change
>>
>> If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws
>> language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public
>> comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/8c561b36/attachment.html>