[CCWG-Accountability] Focus on the mission

Tue Jan 6 14:33:22 UTC 2015

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/d6410665/attachment.html>