RE: [bc-gnso] Re: CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. It's a disservice to the general public to stick to what is 
effectively a 21-day comment periods if the GNSO and other Chartering 
Organizations are unlikely to take final positions until sometime in January at 
the earliest.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Denise 
Michel [denisemichel@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:37 PM
To: BC List
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress 
Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin

We support modestly extending the entire comment process (see my Nov. 11 email, 
inserted below), and if there's broad support for this, we think it should be 
"officially" communicated as a request to the CCWG. Changing the public 
schedule at this point would be preferable to leaving the short public comment 
period in place and having S0s/ACs act when they act.

Thanks.
Denise

Denise Michel
Domain Name System Strategy & Management
Facebook
denisemichel@xxxxxx<mailto:denisemichel@xxxxxx>
(650) 785-6597


From: Denise Michel <denisemichel@xxxxxx<mailto:denisemichel@xxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "bc-private 
icann.org (bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>)" 
<bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [Bc-private] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- 
RE: CCWG - Executive Summary

Thank you for sharing this, Phil.  Susan and I agree with your position.  The 
schedule does not leave enough time for BC>CSG/NCPH>Council analysis, public 
comment consideration, discussion and consensus building on the details of this 
critical proposal.  In addition to unduly rushing substantive community review, 
I'm concerned that the schedule also leaves ICANN vulnerable to charges of 
skirting the bottom-up process and accountability commitments.

I think it would be ideal if the GNSO Council communicated the need for an 
extension to the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs (and cc'd the Board and other 
SOs & ACs). Absent that, perhaps a NCPH or CSG request could be issued?


From: <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>> on behalf of 
Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 12:56 PM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, BC List 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress 
Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin

The CCWG co-chairs are still planning to end the “public comment" period 21-Dec.

But the 6 Chartering Organizations have to get their resolution(s) on each/all 
of the CCWG recommendations.  Some chartering Orgs (like GNSO) are probably not 
going to approve resolutions by 21-Dec.

During public comment period, the BC would be drafting text for our Councilors 
to submit to GNSO Council for its resolution(s).  The BC could also submit a 
written comment based on that same text.

But what really matters is approval of the Chartering Orgs.   We cannot force 
GAC, GNSO, ccNSO to approve complex resolutions if their schedule of calls and 
procedures needs more time.

I have just re-iterated this to CCWG co-chairs today.   We should bring it up 
again on the CCWG call tomorrow.

—Steve


From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:15 PM
To: Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, BC List 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and 
After ICANN54 in Dublin


Steve:



I have expressed my concerns on the CCWG and Council lists, as have others, 
that starting the public comment period from the issuance of this Update 
(downgraded from the previously promised Executive Summary) is unwise, and that 
it should start running from November 30 assuming that the 3rd draft Proposal 
is issued then. Therefore, the comment period ending on December 21 is 
insufficient at only 21 days -- I have expressed my view that it should run 
until at least December 30, and others want it to go until Friday. January 8th.



We are not talking about a big delay here but from 9 to 18 additional days to 
review and comment upon the details of a major revision in approach toward 
accountability.



I'd welcome your thoughts and those of other BC members, as Council may be 
weighing in on this as well.



best, Philip



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



________________________________
From:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>] on behalf of Steve 
DelBianco [sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 1:57 AM
To: BC List
Subject: [bc-gnso] CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In 
and After ICANN54 in Dublin

CCWG today published an overview of where our accountability proposal has been 
adjusted since the Dublin meeting. See 
Link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_ccwg-2Daccountability-2Dissues-2Dformal-2Dupdate-2Don-2Dprogress-2Dmade-2Din-2Dand-2Dafter-2Dicann54-2Din-2Ddublin&d=CwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=FiXVicr3YU3838bEC6rd4paXLrtEJRVyAYvfES1xRl0&s=hPUa_Lhdz9afm6BqM8x0NseUJP-vEE31eh3-DSYiaj0&e=>
 and below for explanation.   Attached is the brief (relatively speaking) 
document, at just 36 pages!

—Steve



CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 
in Dublin

This is a brief and preliminary overview of the proposal for improving ICANN's 
accountability developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing 
ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) over the past year. It includes a 
very high-level summary of the main changes being proposed by the community and 
outlines what will be described in the full proposal.

This 36-page document is designed to update the community on recent progress in 
and after ICANN54 in Dublin and raise awareness of the proposed enhancements to 
ICANN's accountability as a more detailed proposal is finalized. While this 
formal update reflects the current consensus positions of the group, there are 
outstanding elements that remain to be finalized. These finishing details are 
highlighted in the document, and will be confirmed and detailed in the Third 
Draft Proposal.

Download the Formal Update 
here.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cwg-2Ddraft-2D2-2Dproposal-2Dwork-2Dstream-2D1-2Drecs-2D15nov15-2Den.pdf&d=CwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=FiXVicr3YU3838bEC6rd4paXLrtEJRVyAYvfES1xRl0&s=A2HDYar755HJozVXXocuqWZ8xUQIWEwvPzjOTD377cE&e=>


The full Third Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations will be shared 
with the public on 30 November 2015, which will include further explanation and 
detail about the accountability improvements outlined in this document. It will 
also explain why the changes have been suggested, how the community arrived at 
these recommendations and the options considered and ultimately rejected in 
development of the proposal.

We welcome feedback on this document, and encourage all interested stakeholders 
to view the full proposal for any outstanding questions or concerns.

Summary
________________________________

Over the last year, a working group of ICANN community members has been 
developing a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability to the 
global Internet community.

This effort is integral to the transition of the United States' stewardship of 
the IANA functions to the global Internet community, reflecting the ICANN 
community's conclusion that improvements to ICANN's accountability were 
necessary in the absence of the accountability backstop that the historical 
contractual relationship with the United States government provided. The 
accountability improvements set out in this document are not designed to change 
ICANN's multistakeholder model, the bottom-up nature of policy development nor 
significantly alter ICANN's day-to-day operations.

The main elements of the proposal are outlined below. Together with ICANN's 
existing structures and groups, these accountability enhancements will ensure 
ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.

  *   A revised Mission statement for the ICANN Bylaws that sets out what ICANN 
does. This Mission statement clarifies but does not change ICANN's historic 
mission
  *   An enhanced Independent Review Process and redress process with a broader 
scope and the power to ensure ICANN stays within its revised Mission
  *   New specific powers for the ICANN community that can be enforced when the 
usual methods of discussion and dialogue have not effectively built consensus 
including the powers to:
     *   Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans
     *   Reject changes to ICANN's Bylaws
     *   Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws (see below)
     *   Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board
     *   Recall the entire ICANN Board

  *   An additional new power that gives the community a say in decisions about 
the IANA Function Reviews and any separation of the IANA Names Functions
  *   All of these community powers can only be exercised after extensive 
community discussions and debates through processes of engagement and 
escalation. The process of escalation provides many opportunities for the 
resolution of disagreements between the parties before formal action is 
required.

The accountability elements outlined above will be supported through:

  *   Additions to the ICANN Bylaws to create an Empowered Community that is 
based on a simple legal vehicle that will act on the instructions of ICANN 
stakeholder groups to exercise the Community Powers. The Empowered Community is 
granted the status of a Designator (a recognized role in law) and has the 
standing to enforce the Community Powers if needed.
  *   Core elements of ICANN's governing documents (the Articles and Bylaws) 
being categorized asFundamental Bylaws that can only be changed with agreement 
between the ICANN community and the ICANN Board.

In addition, further proposed changes include:

  *   A recognition of ICANN's respect for Human Rights
  *   Incorporation of ICANN's commitments under the 2009 Affirmation of 
Commitments with the United States Department of Commerce into the Bylaws, 
where appropriate
  *   Improved accountability and diversity for ICANN's Supporting 
Organizations and Advisory Committees
  *   A commitment to discuss additional accountability improvements and 
broader accountability enhancements in 2016, following implementation of this 
core set of accountability improvements

To develop these recommendations to improve ICANN's accountability, the Working 
Group:

  *   Relied on suggestions and proposals generated inside the Working Group 
and by the broader Internet multistakeholder community
  *   Conducted public comment periods to gather feedback on earlier drafts and 
discussed iterations of its recommendations across the world at ICANN meetings 
and through online webinars
  *   Rigorously "stress tested" ICANN's current and proposed accountability 
mechanisms to test their strength against problematic scenarios the 
organization could potentially face
  *   Engaged two external law firms to ensure the legal reliability of the 
proposed accountability enhancements
  *   Made the minimum enhancements to ICANN's accountability necessary to meet 
the baseline requirements of the community, as required for the IANA 
Stewardship Transition
  *   Met the requirements of the group that developed the IANA Stewardship 
Transition proposal for the Domain Names community
  *   Met the requirements of the U.S. National Telecommunications and 
Information Agency for theIANA Stewardship Transition

We look forward to your thoughts and feedback on our Third Draft Proposal on 
Enhancing ICANN Accountability.

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - 
www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=FiXVicr3YU3838bEC6rd4paXLrtEJRVyAYvfES1xRl0&s=9sGcFXFUmP-oLhNKS4Fi45NdLOAAfYOsOkQVdOr53x8&e=>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.