[CCWG-Accountability] Focus on the mission

Tue Jan 6 14:38:22 UTC 2015

Dear Drew Noyes

For clarity, the suggestion is to create Work Area 5 within Work Stream 1
as a prelude to Work Stream 2.

Sivasubramanian M

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

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Drew Noyes <drewnoyes at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with your analysis of confining action to Work Area 5.
> On Jan 6, 2015 9:03 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20150106/6b80c4ab/attachment.html>