May 2015 - cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Jaap Akkerhuis 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

All, The Subject says it all. For the full announcement, see <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en>. jaap

2 3

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Regular CRISP Team Meetings
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 May '15

27 May '15

fyi. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 12 maj 2015 08:27:41 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Regular CRISP Team Meetings > > > Hi > > The CRISP team has agreed to hold regular scheduled meeting twice per month. > > The dates agreed are the 2nd Thursday and 4th Wednesday of each month, all meetings will be held at 13:00 UTC. > > Each next meeting will be subject to confirmation by the CRISP team as part of the last item of the agenda in all teleconferences. > > Reminders and webex details will be sent in advance to this list. > > Next meeting will take place on > > Wednesday May 27th 2015 at 13:00 UTC (webex details below) > > After that the tentative schedule of the 6 next meetings are as follows > > Thursday June 11 > Wednesday June 24 > Thursday July 9 > Wednesday July 22 > Thursday August 13 > Wednesday August 26 > > Regards > > German Valdez > > ===== > > CRISP Meeting 4th Wednesday each month > The 4th Wednesday of every month, from Wednesday, May 27, 2015, to Wednesday, December 23, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC) | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m078e6a61a4be9e2761e4cf1689452…> > Meeting number: 707 107 621 > Meeting password: crisp > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 107 621 > Global call-in numbers <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532…> | Toll-free calling restrictions <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Meeting Wednesday May 27th 1:00 PM UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 May '15

27 May '15

FYI Nurani On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 27 maj 2015 11:48:32 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Meeting Wednesday May 27th 1:00 PM UTC > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see below the agenda for the coming CRISP Team call today at UTC13:00 27th May. > As usual, anyone is welcome to participate as an observer. > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Notes from the last meeting > b. Submission of comment to the CWG proposal > > 3. Community discussions > a. RIPE, LACNIC meetings > b. Others regions > c. Global list > d. Reconfirm the CRISP role in SLA discussions > > 4. SLA Review as the CRISP Team > a. Feedback to the draft > b. Confirm steps and time-line before submission > > 5. Follow up on CWG proposal > a. Analysis of SLA exchange with ICANN/PTI > b. Coordination on IPR > > 6. Agenda for NRO EC-CRISP meeting > > 7. Next Meeting > > 8. AOB > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > > On 2015/05/26 19:38, German Valdez wrote: >> Webex information below. >> >> German Valdez >> >> ===== >> >> >> >> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d…> >> Meeting number: 707 107 621 <tel://707%20107%20621> >> Meeting password: crisp >> >> >> JOIN BY PHONE >> 0800-051-3810 <tel://0800-051-3810> Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 <tel://+44-203-478-5289> Call-in toll number (UK) >> Access code: 707 107 621 >> >> Global call-in numbers: >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532…> >> >> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IANA Stewardship on the Agenda at RIPE NCC Roundtable Lunch for Governments and Regulators
by Chris Buckridge 21 May '15

21 May '15

Dear colleagues, Following on from many successful Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators, the RIPE NCC organised a Roundtable Lunch for public sector participants adjacent to the RIPE 70 Meeting in Amsterdam on Thursday, 14 May 2015. Approximately 20 representatives of governments, regulators and industry participated. The focus of the lunch agenda was the IANA stewardship transition, which was discussed in the RIPE 70 plenary session earlier in the week. The lunch was an opportunity for governments to share their perspectives and ask questions of RIPE CRISP team representatives and RIPE NCC staff. The RIPE NCC also shared a presentation with attendees on recent developments in RIPE policy, though time constraints meant that there was no opportunity for discussion of this topic. Copies of both presentation slide decks are available on the website: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/may-2015/presentations The Roundtable Lunch was held between the two sessions of the RIPE 70 Cooperation Working Group, which also allowed government participants to contribute to the Cooperation WG discussions on topics including net neutrality, security and human rights in technology. If you have any questions regarding these Roundtable Meetings, please send an email to <roundtable(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

FYI: translations of CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal posted
by Jaap Akkerhuis 21 May '15

21 May '15

Where you can find the translations: The translated documents are currently posted on the CWG-Stewardship wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw The documents and a notice are posted on the public comment page here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… The Notice (in English): Due to the late availability of the translated versions of the proposal, those who are reliant on these translated versions to provide input will have the ability to submit their comments until 26 May at 23:59 UTC. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requires a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on the translated versions. For any other submissions the existing deadline of 20 May at 23:59 UTC applies. For any questions, please email grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org.

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Comment from the CRISP Team
by Nurani Nimpuno 19 May '15

19 May '15

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the comments submitted from the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of the CWG-Stewardship names proposal. It is not a result of a consultation within the numbers community, but simply an attempt by the CRISP team to highlight issues in the names proposal that may affect the numbers community. I would really encourage anyone interested to provide feedback on the names proposal directly through their public comments process before the deadline 20 May UTC 23:59. (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…) Kind regards, Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 19 maj 2015 00:36:28 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Comment from the CRISP Team > > Dear Colleagues, > > > We would like to share the comment submitted from the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of CWG-Stewardship on the names proposal. > > We hope this could serve as a reference in considering any comments you may wish to submit for their public comments process which closes at UTC 23:59 20th May. Please see more details about CWG-Stewardship proposal at : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… > > Further, we very much value your feedback on the comments submitted from the CRISP Team. > A simple expression of support on this mailing list/to the CWG-Stewardship public comment process would be encouraging for us, while we equally welcome feedbacks which express different views from the CRISP Team. > > Please also feel free to make clarifications on any points about the comment submitted from the CRISP Team. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi and Nurani, on behalf of the CRISP Team > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Comment from the CRISP Team > Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:15:47 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15(a)icann.org, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se> > > Dear CWG-Stewardship, > > > Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments on the 2nd draft of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. > We would like to congratulate the CWG-Stewardship on the coordination and efforts that have resulted in the proposal recently published for public comment. > > Please find attached the comment from the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (The CRISP Team) on your proposal. > > We hope this input would be helpful for coordination between the proposals from the operational communities in future steps and we are open to have continued communication with the CWG-Stewardship Chairs, as well as to make clarification about our comments as needed. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > Chair and Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP team Meeting : Mon 18th May
by Nurani Nimpuno 18 May '15

18 May '15

My very sincere apologies for this last minute forward. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 13 maj 2015 19:56:45 CEST > To: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Cc: "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP team Meeting : Mon 18th May > > Hi > > PLease find below webex details. > > Apologies in advance I won’t attend this meeting as I’ll be in transit to MAG meeting. LACNIC staff will provide the secretariat support during this call/ > > German > > > > >> On 14 May 2015, at 3:05 am, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> wrote: >> >> CRISP Team, >> >> >> Outside our regular call schedule, I would like to suggest having a CRISP Team call on 18th May UTC13:00. >> >> Apologies for a very short notice and for not providing other candidates. >> Nurani and I believe we need to discuss the comments we will be submitting from the CRISP Team to the names proposal before their close of the public comments on 20th May. >> >> Michael and John have very helpfully has worked on the comprehensive and comparative analysis for the names and our proposal, so once this is shared, I encourage you all to share your feedback on the mailing list before the call. >> To submit the comments two days after our call, we need to indentify the issues to raise as the numbers community online as much as possible before the call. >> >> >> Hi German, >> >> Would appreciate it if you could help us send the webex invitation to the global inaxfer(a)nro.net <mailto:inaxfer@nro.net> list. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CRISP mailing list >> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp > > > You can forward this invitation to others. > Hello, > German Valdez invites you to join this WebEx meeting. > > CRISP Meeting May 18th > Monday, May 18, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc730f2d38c9ddd7976a50091e34b5…> > Meeting number: 702 200 705 > Meeting password: crisp > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 702 200 705 > Global call-in numbers <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=390113…> | Toll-free calling restrictions <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
by Salam Yamout 17 May '15

17 May '15

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(a)ripe.net wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)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(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)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(a)ripe.net> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the > numbers community > Message-ID: <5555FF65.2000405(a)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-propos… > [PDF, 1.72 MB] > > CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… > [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 > *********************************************

1 0

CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the numbers community
by Athina Fragkouli 15 May '15

15 May '15

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-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [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

1 0