[cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5

Dear Athina
Thank you for below.  The CCWG draft is indeed complicated and you have revealed the questions of interest.  So here are my opinions:

1- Revised Mission - It is OK to refer to the ASO MOU between ICANN and RIRs as long as it does not contradict the CRISP proposal principles and the new (to be) SLA agreement.  Are we sure that the old ASO MOU between ICANN and RIRs will be valid in the future after the IANA transition?

2- I agree with the removal of the notion "private sector led multistakeholder” 

3- US Headquarters.  I do not agree with the ASO representatives approach  that the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue which would not be considered as fundamental.  This is because we need the assurance of law enforcement in case of disputes or problems.  So the definition of the of the governing law is fundamental to the enactment of the policy.  We all know that what can be right in one country can be wrong in another country so we need to know which law is part of our accountability process.

4- Appeal MEchanisms.  I agree with ASO representatives that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.

5- Powers.  I do have comments on the new suggested structure.  
a- How can the IRP be independent and selected and compensated by ICANN?  

Question:  If ICANN is turned into a member based organization, will it always have 29 members divided between SOs/ACs as described in the CCWG proposal?

 

Best
Salam Yamout


On May 16, 2015, at 1:00 PM, cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net wrote:

> Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the numbers	community
>      (Athina Fragkouli)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:15:01 +0200
> From: Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli at ripe.net>
> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the
> 	numbers	community
> Message-ID: <5555FF65.2000405 at ripe.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
> (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft
> Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here:
> 
> CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes):
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-without-annexes-04may15-en.pdf
> [PDF, 1.72 MB]
> 
> CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes):
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf
> [PDF, 2.05 MB]
> 
> The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to
> review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and
> reply to the questions listed in the document.
> 
> At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community?s attention
> to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the
> numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback:
> 
> 1. Revised Mission
> 
> The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN?s mission
> (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting
> process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of
> ICANN?s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for
> Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative
> description reads as follows:
> 
> ?In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN?s
> Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.?
> 
> Do you feel that this description is accurate?
> 
> 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values
> 
> The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws
> (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows:
> 
> ?Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led
> multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from
> the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii)
> promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii)
> ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy
> development process;?
> 
> Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent
> and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion
> of the notion of ?private sector led multistakeholder?, which is put in
> square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on
> whether ICANN?s core values include the employment of RIR global policies.
> 
> Do you agree with the removal of the notion ?private sector led
> multistakeholder??
> 
> 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws
> 
> The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of
> Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in
> particular regarding ICANN?s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has
> suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept
> of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the
> Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is
> that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision,
> SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other
> hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs
> (75% vote).
> 
> One of these provisions requires that ICANN ?remains headquartered in
> the United States of America?. The CCWG noted that this provision exists
> already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: ?OFFICES.
> The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall
> be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of
> America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or
> outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.?
> 
> As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be
> incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this
> provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by
> the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of
> Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental
> principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue,
> which would not be considered as fundamental.
> 
> Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach?
> 
> 4. Appealing Mechanisms
> 
> The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms
> described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the
> Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives commented that, even
> though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and
> forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is
> outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures for
> disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is:
> 1. an arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant
> to the Global Policy development process
> 2. an arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement
> between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes
> relevant to the IANA numbering services.
> 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have
> relating to Internet number resources issues.
> 
> Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the
> CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be
> excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been
> developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties.
> 
> Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any
> appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes
> relating to Internet number resources.
> 
> 5. Powers
> 
> The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community
> empowerment:
> 
> Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the
> Draft Report, pp 47-48) - We would like to note that this power was
> listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG.
> - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the
> Draft Report pp 48-49)
> - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report
> pp 49-50)
> - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp
> 50-52)
> - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53)
> 
> These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN?s structure into a
> membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members.
> Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal
> (pp 42-45).
> 
> Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the
> suggested structure?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Athina Fragkouli
> ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
> *********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20150517/d59b7f68/attachment.html>