RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board's secret September resolution on internet governance

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wonder if we might focus on what we want on the IG activities, and not 
address the 'blanket' issue, as Bill recommends.M

From: bismith@xxxxxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
CC: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board's secret September resolution on internet 
governance
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:41:38 +0000






While we may disagree with confidential actions, it appears that ICANN’s Bylaws 
allow it, and likely for good reason. There are any number of issue that a 
corporate board faces that require confidential deliberation, decision making, 
and action. I’ve had more
 than my share of these cases.



I’d caution against the BC taking the broad stance suggested, even if limited 
to “just” Internet Governance. I am a strong supporter of openness and 
transparency but there are times that other mechanisms are appropriate. Blanket 
admonitions rarely achieve
 a rational result.




On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:18 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



I intend to say that there is no rationale for secrecy of any work that our 
Board, or our CEO does in the Internet Governance issue and that is is [pick a 
modifier] and unnecessarily stressfully disappointing to the community of 
stakeholders,
 many of whom are active leaders in other Internet public policy debates. 



And that from today, it must be practiced by the Board, byt he staff and by the 
CEO, as well as the community that we are open and transparent and 
collaborative, and understand that the community that built and works at ICANN, 
is also building and working
 in the outside ecosystem of multistakeholder approaches.









From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board's secret September resolution on internet 
governance

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:54:38 +0000




This is the resolution that gave Fadi a mandate for his initiatives in 
Montevideo and Brazil.



See below or at 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2.f 







Resolution Re Internet Coordination (Published on 17 November 2013)
Whereas, the existing, global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance 
system is under increasing pressure to evolve and adapt to global concerns.
Whereas, such pressures and concerns, if not addressed, may negatively impact 
many, including ICANN stakeholders
 and the stability and effectiveness of the open Internet system.
Whereas ICANN has a responsibility to act in the global public
 interest.
Whereas these increasing pressures cannot be addressed by ICANN alone,
 but only by a group of similarly concerned organizations and entities acting 
in concert, ICANNshould participate in an effort
 to form an Internet cooperation agenda ("Coalition").
Resolved (2013-09-28-C1), the ICANN Board authorizes its CEO
 to allocate necessary and sufficient time and resources of ICANN and work with 
other key organizations and leaders to establish
 a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative. The financial 
resources for building the coalition must be allocated from the already 
established Strategic Plan funds.
ICANN's involvement shall be consistent with ICANN's
 purpose. The CEO shall provide regular reports to the Board of Directors 
regarding the status of these discussions.
Resolved (2013-09-28-C2), the Board directs the CEO to: (1) assess the 
potential for success of the Coalition; (2) in the event of a positive 
assessment, should the CEO recommend an additional longer
 term strategy based on Coalition results, the CEO shall present such a plan of 
action, including any additional financial resources required, for further 
consideration by the Board.
Confidentiality Resolution
Resolved (2013-09-28-C3), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, 
Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws,
 this resolution and rationale be kept confidential. Such resolution shall be 
held confidentially, without publication, until such time as the Board 
determines that such a resolution shall be published.
RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTIONS 2013-09-28-C1 – 2013-09-28-C2
ICANN uses a multi-stakeholder governance model to coordinate,
 at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers. 
This governance model is derived from the approach of global multi-stakeholder 
cooperation that has been used over time in the development of the Internet and 
World Wide Web. As ICANN has
 been participating in discussion regarding Internet Governance, there has been 
continuing debate on whether to use conventional governance models or a global 
multi-stakeholder governance model to address broader governance coordination 
issues. This action
 by the Board is an initial step in moving towards how ICANN can assist the 
global community in addressing these issues through
 global multi-stakeholder cooperation without compromising or increasing 
ICANN's mandate. The potential for the formation
 of a Coalition to address these Internet coordination issues appears to be the 
most promising path forward to starting this work.
Taking this action allows ICANN to remain responsive to those
 in the Internet community that wish to continue to use a global 
multi-stakeholder to address broader Internet governance issues, while 
remaining accountable to its core mission. The development of a coalition will 
allow for community participation and input
 into this coordination work, while not relying solely on ICANN or ICANN 
processes
 to move coordination issues to the forefront. Achieving this balance is key 
for ICANN in its role in acting in the public
 interest.
As this resolution directs that all of this initial work be performed within 
the Board approved budget for Strategy Panels of US$3.5 million this action is 
not anticipated to have a significant financial
 impact on ICANN. Similarly, directing ICANN to
 initiate coordination exercises is not anticipated to have any impact on the 
security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of any 
Coalition
 could have positive benefits on how these issues are coordinated in the future.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is 
not required.