ALAC Withdraws Support for CCWG's Proposed ICANN Membership Model

Today at ICANN 54, meeting in Dublin, Ireland, ALAC, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee, which represents individual Internet users throughout the world, withdrew its support for the Membership model for ICANN, proposed by CCWG-Accountability in its 2nd draft Report (pdf). Alan Greenberg, Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee posted the following on the public mail list of CCWG-Accountability on Sunday (emphasis added):

Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015
To: CCWG Accountability
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided.

Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.

In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order.

Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.

I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.

Alan Greenberg
Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee

Domain Mondo Editor's Note: It is doubtful that any membership model would be supported by the ICANN Board--see: ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015.

See also: ALAC Comments on CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report (September 11, 2015)

ALAC has 5 members on the CCWG. The CCWG has a total of 26 members, plus a Board liaison and Staff representative, plus another 164 "participants."

ALAC's 5 members on CCWG-Accountability:
Sebastien Bachollet (Europe)
Tijani Ben Jemaa (Africa)
Alan Greenberg (North America)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Asia/Asia Pacific)
León Sanchez (Latin America) – CCWG Co-Chair

ALAC website: atlarge.icann.org

Background: At-Large is the name for the community of individual Internet users who participate in the policy development work of ICANN. More than 140 At-Large Structures representing the views of individual Internet users are active throughout the world. Learn more about the community and its activities on the website www.atlarge.icann.org, as well as how to join and participate in building the future of the worldwide Domain Name System (DNS) and other unique identifiers which every single user of the Internet relies on with every online visit. (source: ALAC website, supra)

About the ALAC, At-Large Advisory Committee:

On 31 October 2002, the ICANN Board adopted new Bylaws that established the ALAC and authorized its supporting At-Large organizations. See: Article XI, Section 2(4). The new Bylaws, which were the result of ICANN's 2002 reform process, went into effect on 15 December 2002. They called for the ALAC to eventually consist of ten members selected by Regional At-Large Organizations, supplemented by five members selected by ICANN's Nominating Committee. Underpinning the ALAC is a network of self-organizing, self- supporting At-Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users at the local or issue level. The At-Large Structures have self-organised into five Regional At-Large Organizations (one in each ICANN region – Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America). The Regional At-Large Organizations are managing outreach and public involvement and are the main forum and coordination point in each region for public input to ICANN. (source: ICANN)

The CCWG-Accountability (Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) is having further meetings/sessions this week in conjuction with ICANN 54 in Dublin, Ireland. According to the ICANN 54 schedule, CCWG-Accountability sessions scheduled for the rest of this week (all times are Irish Standard Time, and anyone can observe/attend by following the links on each session page link below):

Monday, Oct 19: 10:15 to 11:45 IST Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session I Auditorium
Monday, Oct 19: 14:00 to 18:30 IST CCWG-Accountability Working Session I Liffey B
Wednesday, Oct 21: 17:00 to 20:00 IST CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session II Auditorium
Thursday, Oct 22: 08:00 to 10:30 IST CCWG-Accountability Working Session II Liffey Hall 2

See recent posts related to CCWG-Accountability on Domain Mondo:

• GAC Oct 17: ICANN CEO, CCWG Co-Chair, Ships Passing in the Night? Oct 17, 2015
• Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA? Oct 15 2015
• CCWG-Accountability Attorneys: ICANN Already Uses 'Designator Model' Oct 13, 2015
• A Lust for Power: Is PIMCO Like Some CCWG-Accountability Members? Oct 9, 2015
• IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, "Has Always Been About POWER" Oct 1, 2015
• ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015
• China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal Sep 24, 2015
• Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability [CCWG 2nd draft] Proposal Overall Sep 22, 2015
• ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments Sep 15, 2015

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN54 Dublin info/links | Oct 16-23 Schedule

ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model

"The [ICANN] Board does not support the single member model.  We are unified in wanting to work with the community to find practical solutions to achieve the additional levels of accountability sought by the community including the ability to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets."--ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker, Sept 26, 2015, in "chat" following his statement further below (emphasis added)

Following Chairman Crocker's statements (above and below) at the CCWG meeting, Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group in the "chat" stated--

Keith Drazek: "I don't think anyone wants to get to a point of brinksmanship between community and Board. We're not there now and we should try to avoid it. That probably means the CCWG needs to assess all the public comments, including the Board's, and try to identify a compromise solution that doesn't compromise our stated goals. Some legitimate concerns have been raised by the Board and others, and we need to address them. Doing so should result in a compromise everyone can live with....consensus."

On Saturday, September 26, 2015, the second day of the CCWG-Accountability F2F LA meeting, ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker informed the CCWG that the proposed single member model a/k/a CMSM model is not supported by the ICANN Board of Directors. Accordingly, CCWG's 2nd draft proposal for ICANN membership may likely fail to achieve the necessary "consensus"-- see "chat" comment of Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group, above.

STEVE CROCKER [ICANN Board Chairman]: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CAN'T EMPHASIZE STRONGLY ENOUGH HOW THANKFUL WE ARE, HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE THAT EVERYBODY HAS COME TOGETHER. THIS IS A HASTILY SCHEDULED MEETING, DISPLACED A LOT OF SCHEDULES AND EVERYTHING. AND WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF -- THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. AND I WANT TO SPEAK -- I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BOARD'S POSITION AND ATTITUDE ABOUT ALL THIS.

THE TRANSITION IS VERY IMPORTANT. "VERY IMPORTANT" IS NOT THE SAME AS IT DOMINATES EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE. OUR PRIMARY COMMITMENT, OUR OVERRIDING COMMITMENT IS TO THE INCLUSIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
IT CANNOT SUPPORT COMPROMISES THAT UNDERMINE THAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS HAS BEEN BUILT UP IN A -- BY ACCRETION IN A WAY OVER 17 YEARS WITH CHANGES AND ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OVER TIME. EACH OF US SERVES ON THE BOARD FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. AND EVEN IF WE EXTEND IT OUT AS I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME, EVENTUALLY IT COMES TO AN END. NONE OF US ARE HERE PERMANENTLY. THERE'S NO SENSE IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS A ROLE DISTINCT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE COME FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE RETURN TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE LEAVE BEHIND WHAT WE HOPE IS A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT OPERATION.

BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS STRONGLY AS WE ARE SUPPORTIVE AND BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF ICANN, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS PERSISTED FOR A LONG TIME. WE WRESTLE WITH IT. WE CHAFE UNDER IT A BIT. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISASTROUS. SO THAT SETS A KIND OF THRESHOLD FOR WHAT OUR ULTIMATE DECISION PROCESS IS GOING TO BE.

WE THINK THAT WE ARE SO, SO CLOSE TO WRESTLING -- WRESTLING TO THE GROUND TO GETTING AGREEMENTS ON THE BIG THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT HERE ON ACCOUNTABILITY, ON TRANSPARENCY, ON ENFORCEABILITY, ON COMMUNITY POWERS, AND EVEN ABILITY TO REMOVE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS. YOU MAY THINK THAT THAT'S A THREAT SOMETIMES. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A RELIEF AS AN ESCAPE. [LAUGHTER ]

ANOTHER KEY THING THAT'S VERY VIBRANT AND VISIBLE TO US IS THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION, THE PREDICATE FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT MADE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WAS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS SAYING ICANN IS READY FOR BEING CAST LOOSE. IT DID NOT SAY WE ARE TIRED OF RUNNING IT AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY TO SUBSTITUTE FOR OURSELVES. THEY DID SAY, OF COURSE, THEY WANTED A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL TO BE COMFORTABLE, TO EVERYBODY TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SYSTEM. AND IT OPENED UP THE DIALOGUE WHICH LED TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. BUT THEY DID NOT -- AND I SHOULDN'T SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID. BUT WE CERTAINLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT CREATING A SUPERSTRUCTURE TO REPLACE THEM IN A CORPORATE SENSE WAS INTENDED, DESIRED, NEEDED, OR APPROPRIATE.

SO WE'RE FEELING OUR WAY VERY GINGERLY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE BOARD BELIEVES VERY DEEPLY AND TRIES TO ACT APPROPRIATELY THAT WE REPRESENT AND CARRY OUT THE SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT IN A BASTION POSITION OF DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IN THE END, WE ARE TRYING TO BE REPRESENTATIVES AND CARETAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE VERY STRONG RESPONSIBILITY. AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS CAREFULLY SEPARATED FROM EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSTITUENCIES. WE TAKE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST VERY SERIOUSLY IN THE SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER HAS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OR DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, IT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED AND THEY GET REMOVED FROM THE DECISION PROCESS AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME FRAMEWORK OF PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF DISCIPLINE IF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE SERIOUSLY.

SO THE COMMENTS THAT WE SUBMITTED SOME TIME AGO, WE DID REPRESENT A BOARD POSITION. WE DID A QUICK CHECK THIS MORNING, AND 100% AGREEMENT THAT WHAT WE SAID THEN STILL STANDS.

WE REALLY, REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SO CLOSE THAT IT'S THERE. AND, AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE OBJECTIVES. AND WE'RE DOWN TO WHAT IS SOMETIMES SAID WITH A LITTLE BIT OF IRONY, THESE ARE JUST IMPLEMENT DETAILS BUT THE IMPLEMENT DETAILS ARE, IN FACT, QUITE IMPORTANT.

I WAS REFLECTING AS I SAT IN MEETINGS -- IT IS ALMOST EMBARRASSING -- ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO TO BRING INDIVIDUALS TOGETHER TO BUILD THE ARPANET I WAS TERRIBLY CHAGRINED FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WE HAD -- FIRST TIME WE HAD PEOPLE FLYING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE U.S. TO COME TO A MEETING. AND THE MEETING FELL APART BY NOONTIME BECAUSE THE SOLUTION THAT I HAD BEEN PUSHING WAS REJECTED BY THE VERY PEOPLE I THOUGHT THAT I WAS DRAWING IT FROM. I WAS TAKING MODELS ABOUT THE WAY THE ADVANCED SYSTEMS AT MIT WORKED AND THE MIT PEOPLE CAME AND SAID "WE CAN'T DO THIS" MUCH THE WHOLE MEETING WAS IN SHAMBLES. I WAS A LOT YOUNGER THEN AND IT RATTLED ME. SOMEBODY TOOK ME ASIDE AND SAID "YOU WILL GET THROUGH THIS." SURE ENOUGH, THE PROTOCOLS GOT REBUILT, AND THE ARPANET GOT BUILT AND LOTS OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN.

WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK, AND WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK WELL ENOUGH. I WAS VERY, VERY PLEASED TO SEE THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE LUNCH. TO MY EYE, THEY WERE MORE SIMILAR THAN DIFFERENT, DIFFERED IN SOME DETAILS. AND ONE OF THE TEST QUESTIONS I ASKED: WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY? AND THERE WERE ANSWERS. IT WASN'T ZERO. AND I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT ONE COULD ARGUE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF IT WAS DONE DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT I THINK WE WANT TO DO IT IN A MEASURED AND INCREMENTAL WAY AND WITH THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. WE'VE HAD THE ATRT REVIEWS. WE'VE HAD THE STRUCTURAL REVIEWS. WE'D HAD PLENTY -- WE HAVE ALL OF THE ADVICE THAT COMES IN FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND WE HAVE THE POLICIES THAT COME UP FROM THE SOs. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT WILL GO ON TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY. AND IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT WE GRAB HOLD OF EVERY SORT OF THING AND MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN NOW.

SO I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT. I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT THE BOARD IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, IF WE CAN, STAYING OUT OF THE WAY IF THAT'S THE BEST THING TO DO. BUT WE'RE NOT TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM SOME YEARS AGO, WE ARE NOT POTTED PLANTS. WE ARE NOT JUST SITTING HERE PASSIVELY. WE ARE VERY HEAVILY ENGAGED. AND WE HAVE QUITE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THOSE WILL GET EXPRESSED AS THEY ARE -- AS I'M TRYING TO DO NOW AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE AS WE GO.

AND WE ARE HOPING VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT PUT INTO A POSITION OF HAVING TO MAKE REALLY TOUGH DECISIONS OR GET INTO A "IT'S THAT OR THAT" SORT OF THING. BUT, IF NECESSARY, ALL OF US ARE SEASONED ADULTS AND WE TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES QUITE HEAVILY AND WE DON'T HAVE CONSEQUENCES EXCEPT TO OUR OWN PERSONAL REPUTATIONS OR CONSCIENCE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PERHAPS. WE WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY, WHEN IT'S NECESSARY. WE DON'T WANT TO CONVEY THAT AS A THREAT, MORE AS A PLEA, SORT OF "PLEASE DON'T THROW US INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH" IF YOU WILL. ..." (emphasis added) (Note: This transcription may be incomplete/inaccurate--a final reviewed transcript will be posted on CCWG Wiki)

See also on Domain Mondo:

• CCWG-Accountability F2F LA Meeting, Sep 25-26, ICANN Board (Sept 25, 2015)
• China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal (Sept 24, 2015)
• Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability Proposal Overall (Sept 22, 2015) 
• ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments (Sept 15, 2015)

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN 53, IANA Transition, Stakeholder Proposals, NTIA Questions

Ahead of the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina (pre-ICANN 53 meetings have already started in Buenos Aires) Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling, posted a review of the work thus far in the IANA Stewardship Transition, including the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. Strickling raised several questions (excerpt follows, emphasis added):

NTIA Administrator
Lawrence E. Strickling
(source: US government)

"Next week, hundreds of members of the Internet stakeholder community will attend the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) 53rd meeting in Argentina ... one of NTIA’s top priorities continues to be the transition of NTIA’s role related to the Internet Domain Name System. Since we announced the IANA stewardship transition in March 2014, the response of the stakeholder community has been remarkable and inspiring ... the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) must combine these proposals into a consolidated transition proposal and then seek public comment on all aspects of the plan ... [The ICG] must build a public record for us on how the three customer group submissions tie together in a manner that ensures NTIA’s criteria are met and institutionalized over the long term.

... the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider:

• The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? 
• Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?
• The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? 
• Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? 
• Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? 
• Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature?
• The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP?
• In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? 
• Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard?
• The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?
• ... the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. As the plans take final shape, I hope the community starts to focus on the matter of implementation of its recommendations. Have the issues of implementation been identified and addressed in the proposal so that the community and ICANN can implement the plan as expeditiously as possible once we have reviewed and accepted it? 

... after the Buenos Aires meeting, NTIA will need to make a determination on extending its current contract with ICANN, which expires on September 30, 2015. Last month, I asked both the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability for an update on the transition planning, as well as their views on how long it will take to finalize and implement the transition plan if it were approved. Keeping in mind that the community and ICANN will need to implement all work items identified by the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability as prerequisites for the transition before the contract can end, the community’s input on timing is critical and will strongly influence how NTIA proceeds with the contract extension. I look forward to hearing from everyone in Buenos Aires. At this key juncture, it is timely to not only take stock of all the work that has occurred, but also what lies ahead." 

Read Secretary Strickling's full comments here: Stakeholder Proposals to Come Together at ICANN Meeting in Argentina.

Members of ICANN's CCWG-Accountability have started discussing and answering Strickling's (who is referred to as simply "Larry" on the CCWG mail list) questions:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-June/003429.html


Follow @DomainMondo