December 2015 - cooperation-wg

FYI: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors
by Patrik Fältström 20 Jul '19

20 Jul '19

Hi, As you can see below European Commission just released human rights guidance for 3 business sectors. I have helped COM and specifically IHRB with their piece of the work, and I know others on this list have also helped. Everything from more formal support to extremely good comments that have helped making the documents what they finally ended up being. Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod Begin forwarded message: > From: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > Subject: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors > Date: 17 juni 2013 18:23:09 CEST > To: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > > We are pleased to announce the publication of the European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. > > > Download the Guides here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6711&lang… > > The Guides – for employment and recruitment agencies, ICT companies, and oil and gas companies – were developed over the past 18 months by Shift and IHRB through extensive research and multistakeholder consultation with representatives from the three industries as well as governments, trade unions, civil society, academia and other experts. Read more about the Guides’ development here. > > Each Guide offers practical advice on how to implement the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in day-to-day business operations in each industry through step-by-step guidance. At each step, they summarise what the UN Guiding Principles expect, offer a range of approaches and examples for how to put them into practice, and link users to additional resources that can support their work. They are intended to help companies “translate” respect for human rights into their own systems and cultures. > > Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this process. > > Best regards, > > > CSR Team > > European Commission > Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General > Unit ENTR.D.1 >

6 12

Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 21 Dec '15

21 Dec '15

Dear Richard, Thank you for your reply. Regarding your comment on the Sole Designator Model, I would like to highlight that the NTIA requirement you mention refers to the oversight of the IANA function. The replacement of the oversight of the IANA function is described in the ICG proposal. The CCWG draft report, however, refers to the oversight of ICANN. Therefore, the NTIA requirement would not be applicable in this case. With regards to the topic of U.S. Headquarters as part of ICANN's fundamental bylaws, thank you for expressing your agreement to the ASO representatives' position. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:40:37 +0100 > From: "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > To: "'Athina Fragkouli'" <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>, > <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers > Related Analysis > > Thank you for this. > > Please see embedded comments below. > > Best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf >> Of Athina Fragkouli >> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 16:46 >> To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related >> Analysis >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on >> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft >> Report, available here: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-work-stream-1-recs-30nov15-en.pdf >> >> Comments can be sent via this webpage: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-2015-11-30-en >> >> The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. > > SNIP > >> >> 2. Sole Designator Model >> >> The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised >> by changing ICANN?s structure, and introduced a structure called the >> Sole Membership Model. >> >> During and following the public consultation, objections to this model >> were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, >> the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole >> Designator Model. >> >> The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-1-30nov15-en.pdf). >> >> The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: >> >> - To implement the ?Sole Designator? model, ICANN?s Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to >> enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to >> as the ?Empowered Community?. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal >> personhood. >> - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint >> and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire >> Board. >> Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a >> decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely >> implement their decisions. >> - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered >> Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned >> in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply >> with that decision. >> - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to >> start the process and to exercise community power) are described in >> ANNEX 04 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-4-30nov15-en.pdf) >> >> Do you have any comments with regard to this model? > > Paragraph 58 of that proposal shows that the "empowered community" would consist of 5 organizations: ALAC, ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, and GAC. Each of these organizations is an organic component of ICANN, and the majority of them represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Thus, the proposal does not provide for any external accountability or supervision of ICANN: ICANN would be accountable only to entities that are part of ICANN. > > In March 2014, NTIA announced that it intended "to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community", see: > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio… > > An entity (the "empowered community") that consists of organizations that are organic components of ICANN is obviously not "the global multistakeholdercommunity", nor can it be construed to be representative of that community when 3 out of 5 of the cited organizations represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Consequently, the proposal manifestly fails to meet the main objective enunciated by NTIA, namely that ICANNshould be accountable to a the broad global multistakeholder community. Therefore, I do not agree with recommendations contained in the proposal. > > It still seems to me that it would be better to turn ICANN into a proper membership organization, see: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/pdfXXrCnTxCwW.pdf > > SNIP > > >> >> 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws >> >> In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the >> CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related >> provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in >> particular regarding ICANN?s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG >> suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The >> concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-3-30nov15-en.pdf) >> of the third Draft Report. >> >> The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the >> Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could >> block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change >> to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting >> rights (75% vote). >> >> One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments 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.? >> >> The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a >> Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of >> Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the >> Fundamental Bylaws. >> >> The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: >> >> ?There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. >> Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, >> most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR >> community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in >> the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an >> administrative issue.? > > I agree. It is not appropriate to case into stone that ICANN must reside in the USA. > > SNIP >

3 4

CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft Report, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo… Comments can be sent via this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to to highlight the principle amendments introduced in the third Draft Report and provide you with an update on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the second Draft Report (see communication from 9 September 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-September/00078…). 1. Community powers In the third Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows (see ANNEX 01 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): - Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reject changes to ICANN’s Bylaws - Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation - Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board. - Recall the entire ICANN Board - Initiate a binding Independent Review Process (where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results) - Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of Post-Transition IANA separation [We would like to note that this power refers to the CWG-Stewardship transition proposal] 2. Sole Designator Model The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure, and introduced a structure called the Sole Membership Model. During and following the public consultation, objections to this model were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Designator Model. The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: - To implement the “Sole Designator” model, ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to as the “Empowered Community”. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire Board. Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely implement their decisions. - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply with that decision. - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to start the process and to exercise community power) are described in ANNEX 04 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) Do you have any comments with regard to this model? 3. Revised Mission The third Draft Report suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in ANNEX 05 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). ICANN's mission with regards to Internet number resources, is described as follows: “ Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” (ANNEX 5 p8, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The description is in line with the feedback provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the first public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) of the third Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments 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.” The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The third Draft Report provides that two considerations suggest that the CCWG-Accountability should not propose that Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: - Public comment on the first and second draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. - Second, the Empowered Community could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states, “The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.” (ANNEX 3, p 6, para 25 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) 5. 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 have communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms 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. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. 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.” Accordingly, in the third Draft Report (as well as in the second Draft Report) there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (ANNEX 07, para 22 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However, in the annex describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (ANNEX 08, para 8 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IGF 2015 output document: "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 09 Dec '15

09 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, In earlier emails we asked you to review the draft outcome document for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Best Practice Forum on IPv6. This is to let you know the 2015 IGF inter-sessional work has now concluded and the final output document has been published on the IGF website. It is available for download at: http://goo.gl/BXBzTn Acknowledging the need for a increased rate of IPv6 adoption, the documents highlights numerous examples and best practices that can help businesses and governments with their IPv6 deployment projects. A large section of the document is dedicated to role and function of IPv6 task forces, which can be instrumental to a successful IPv6 deployment in a particular country or region. In addition it provides an overview of various capacity building programs that are available, which includes the RIPE NCC Training Courses and IPv6 Roadshows. We hope this document provides useful guidance for our community members and stakeholders that face the important step of enabling IPv6 in their networks and services. We would like to thank everybody who contributed to this document and in particular Susan Chalmers, Izumi Okutani and Wim Degezelle who jointly coordinated and supported the work on behalf of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0