RE: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks All for your input on this topic.

 

Helpful to get the support for / perspective on enhanced representation.

 

Insightful to get the detail on IPC position.

 

I hope we will see the GNSO having the opportunity to be represented by a
minimum of the four and have provided that feedback.

 

Jonathan

 

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 May 2014 13:56
To: Winterfeldt, Brian J.; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed
Next Steps for the Process

 

Brian, Jonathan & Councilors:

 

This aligns fairly closely with the RrSG position that each SO/AC should
submit the number of delegates required to be representative, but be
encouraged to keep the number as small as possible.

 

Thanks-

 

J.

 

From: <Winterfeldt>, "Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 12:56 
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed
Next Steps for the Process

 

Dear Jonathan:

 

As an initial reaction, I am tentative to agree with the four SG
representative model for this WG.

 

In parallel, with respect to the IANA transition steering committee, I would
refer you to the formal IPC comments on the matter below.  The comments
essentially conclude that each of the seven constituent organizations within
the GNSO should be represented on the steering committee.

 

·         ISSUE:The composition of theSteering Committeeis troublesome.

o   Fromthe GNSOpoint ofview, havingonly two memberson the Steering
Committeeis inconsistent with the multistakeholder compositionof the GNSO.
The GNSOis an ?umbrella? forseven distinctorganizations,representing
different categoriesof stakeholders,with widelydiffering and often opposed
points of view.It isnot acceptable that at least five,if not six, of the
GNSO constituentorganizations, and atleast two, and possiblythree, of
theGNSO Stakeholder Groupswill not berepresented onthe SteeringCommittee.
Who willnot be representedand why?

 

o   On theother hand, theASO (as an ICANNSO) and the NRO(as an ?affected
party?) each get2 representatives.However, theASO and the NROare essentially
thesame organization pursuant to their2004 Memorandum of Understanding.(This
MoUestablishes that theNRO fulfills therole, responsibilities, and
functionsof the ASO as definedwithin theICANN Bylaws. See
<http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso->
http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou,A
rt. 1.)

 

o   Viewedfrom outsideICANN, thisis an even moretroublesome proposal.  For
example,if one orboth of the GNSOrepresentatives is fromeither theRegistry
or RegistrarSG, therewould beno representativeof the ?private sector?(i.e.,
CSG) or no representativeof ?civilsociety? (i.e.,NCSG), orboth. Atthe same
time,it is possible thatthe Registriescould haverepresentatives
comingthrough IETF or IABchannels, givingthem additionalrepresentation.

 

·         PROPOSAL:The Steering Groupshould bereconstituted so thateach of
theseven constituentorganizations of theGNSO has a SteeringCommittee seat,
whilethe NRO/ASO (combined) entityhas two seats.

 

Thank you,

 

Brian

 

Brian J. Winterfeldt 
Head of Internet Practice
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244
brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / www.kattenlaw.com
<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> 

 

 

From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 23, 2014 at 9:43:18 AM EDT
To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Robinson
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed
Next Steps for the Process

Agree with Volker, John & Jonathan, and believe this approach should be
adopted by other community groups (e.g. The proposed IANA Steering Group).

 

Thanks?

 

J.

 

 

From: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:38 
To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed
Next Steps for the Process

 

Jonathan,

I would support any recommendation that properly weights the voice of the
GNSO community.  

Berard

On May 23, 2014 4:29 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

 

It is my view that the GNSO should reasonably expect to have four
representatives (one per SG) on this Working Group.

 

Please let me know if you think similarly or differently.

 

Jonathan

 

From: David Olive [mailto:david.olive@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 16 May 2014 08:46
To: Jonathan Robinson; Byron Holland; Louie Lee; heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx;
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Lars-Johan Liman; Jun Murai
Cc: Theresa Swinehart; Samantha Eisner
Subject: FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps
for the Process

 

Dear SO-AC Chairs:

 

In follow up to ICANN?s recent announcement on the Enhancing ICANN
Accountability review, part of the success of this group will be through the
SO and AC?s identification of members to serve on the Working Group.  In
contrast to the ATRT reviews and others, ICANN will not be making community
appointments to the group from a slate of identified candidates; the
community representation on this Working Group is to be determined by the
SO/AC leadership.  We are hoping that you can start consideration of
membership from SO or AC that you are leading. As ICANN is trying to align
the timeline of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability work to the IANA
Stewardship Transition work, we are hoping that we can have community
representation identified in advance of ICANN50 in London.  

 

To help structure the work of the Working Group, ICANN has identified a
range of subject matter areas within which competency would be helpful,
including: 

·         Internet Technical Operations

·         International Organizational Reviews

·         Global Accountability Tools and Metrics

·         Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism

·         Internet Consumer Protection

·         Economics (Marketplace and Competition)

·         Global Ethics Frameworks

·         Operational, Finance and Process

·         Board Governance

·         Transparency

·         Risk Management

While we did not specify the full number of community members that will be
appointed to the Working Group, we are hopeful that each SO and AC will
consider identifying two representatives (and no more than three) so that
the Working Group is of a size that can perform its work in an efficient
manner.  We also encourage the consideration of the subject matters when
identifying representatives. 

 

If you have more questions about this process, please let Theresa Swinehart
or myself  know.

 

Best regards,        David 

 

David A. Olive

Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 

Mobile:       + 1. 202.341.3611

Email:  david.olive@xxxxxxxxx

www.icann.org

 






 






 

 

From: David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:47 AM
To: "soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for
the Process

 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabilit
y

 


Proposed Next Steps for the Process


Establishing the ICANN Accountability Working Group:


At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, members of the community suggested
establishing a working group to address topics raised around ICANN
Accountability. To respond to both the community dialogues and suggestions,
an ICANN Accountability Working Group is proposed.

The leaders of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will
be responsible for appointment of community members to the Working Group.
Community members with skills in the subject matter areas listed below are
encouraged to have their names put forward by the leadership of ICANN's
Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for participation in the
Working Group before the end of the comment and reply period. The Board may
appoint liaisons to the Working Group. ICANN staff will identify external
experts in these subject matter areas to join the Working Group and bring in
new ideas. The subject matter areas are:

*       Internet Technical Operations 
*       International Organizational Reviews 
*       Global Accountability Tools and Metrics 
*       Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism 
*       Internet Consumer Protection 
*       Economics (Marketplace and Competition) 
*       Global Ethics Frameworks 
*       Operational, Finance and Process 
*       Board Governance 
*       Transparency 
*       Risk Management 

After the public comment and reply period, the Working Group will commence
in time for the ICANN 50 Meeting. It's expected that sub-working groups on
specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all including experts.

The ICANN Accountability Working Group would coordinate community dialogue,
including discussion on draft materials on the discussions and proposed
themes outlined above with regards to strengthening ICANN's accountability
to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the
U.S. Government and other identified issues. One of the first tasks of the
Working Group will be to identify the issues that need to be solved. The
ICANN Accountability Working Group would prepare a draft report on issues
identified including whether measures are needed to strengthen ICANN's
accountability, and if so, the recommended time frames for development of
new or improved mechanisms, if any. The draft report would be provided for
public comment. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would submit its
final report to the ICANN Board. The Board would immediately and publicly
post the final report, consider whether to adopt all or parts of it, and
direct the CEO to implement those parts it has accepted once that decision
is made.

It is expected that the ICANN Accountability Working Group would operate in
an open, transparent and inclusive process, primarily through remote
participation opportunities, that would include:

*       A website that would include a timeline of activities and events, as
well as all materials and communications from the working group, and a full
archive of all content provided and evaluated throughout the process; 
*       A mailing list to ensure anyone can remain involved in the
activities and progress of the group; and, 
*       All meetings and phone conference would be open for stakeholders to
observe and transcripts and recordings would be posted. 


Questions for Community Discussion:


As the next steps are being outlined and process finalized, ICANN is
collecting community input to help provide feedback to further the work of
the ICANN Accountability Working Group once it is comprised. ICANN is now
seeking community discussion on both the questions first posed in March 2014
as well as some additional questions:

*       What issues does the community identify as being core to
strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its
historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? 
*       What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of
accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the
consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community?
Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? 
*       Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein
need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and
so, how? 
*       What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is
meeting its accountability commitments? 
*       Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives
up to its commitments? 
*       What additional comments would you like to share that could be of
use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? 

Please provide your input on the questions above at
comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14@xxxxxxxxx

Download a PDF of this document here
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabili
ty-06may14-en.pdf>  [PDF, 375 KB].

 

 

David A. Olive

Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 

Mobile:       + 1. 202.341.3611

Email:  david.olive@xxxxxxxxx

www.icann.org

 






 






 


===========================================================
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before
the Internal Revenue
Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be
used and cannot be used
by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed
on the taxpayer.
===========================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing,
copying, disclosure or 
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or
sanction.  Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients
and delete the original 
message without making any copies.
===========================================================
NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability
partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
===========================================================