October 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

WS2 Dashboard presentation
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 26, 2016

Oct. 26, 2016

Dear all, Here is a quick presentation of the WS2 dashboard. The dashboard is composed of 3 overview slides, plus 9 detailed slides (1 per subgroup). It includes activity statistics, financial data and status updates on each workgroup. The statistics are pulled by support staff from the information provided on the wiki pages in terms of participation, meeting schedules and attendance, and mailing lists statistics. The financial data is prepared by the PCST, and approved by the co-chairs. The status updates and progress estimates are provided by the subgroups rapporteurs. A scaling method has been defined to measure progress uniformly accross all subgroups (see below) - the rapporteurs should use this scale to note their progress so that there is a uniform scale for all groups. Progress measurement: 5 % - subgroup formed 10% - working methods defined 15% - questions to answer have been documented 20% - work to do has been documented 30% - produced draft for subgroup consensus 40% - produced draft for CCWG considerations and comments 50% - Produced draft for CCWG approval for public consultation 60% - Produced draft for public comment 70% - analyzed public comments 80% - revised draft for CCWG considerations and comments 90% - produced draft for CCWG approval 100% - CCWG approved The dashboard will be updated monthly and posted to the wiki, according to the following schedule: - 25th of the month (M): subgroups rapporteurs provide their monthly update. - 25th + 5 business days: PCST provide draft financial statement of activity to CCWG co-chairs for previous period (M-1). - End of month: staff updates report with all statistical data of the month (M) - 25th + 10 business days: dashboard including activity of month (M), and financial information of month (M-1) is published at the beginning of the next month (M+1). We are rushing the publication schedule of the 1st dashboard in order to have a report ready for sharing by the CCWG-Acct members while in Hyderabad. Tentative publication schedule: - Oct 27th: Subgroups rapporteurs to provide their inputs (status update) - Nov 2nd: draft presented during the F2F meeting. - Nov 5th: dashboard published on the wiki. Please find attached a sample of the dashboard. We hope that you will find this a useful tool, both for CCWG's internal purposes, and for communication out to the wider community and other interested parties. Looking forward to your comments and feedback. Thank you! With kind regards, MSSI Projects & Operations Team ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-FacetoFaceMeeting-ICANN57-Hyderabad Draft Agenda - correction
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 26, 2016

Oct. 26, 2016

Please noe that contrary to the note below there will only be coffee/tea served prior to the start of the meeting. Apologies for the confusion. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > Please find below and attached the draft agenda for our Face to Face > meeting in Hyderabad for your comments. > > Please note the following regarding timing and transportation from the > plenary yesterday: > > - Please note that ICANN Shuttles will be operating on a reduced > schedule for the Face to Face meeting on November 2nd in Hyderabad. On 2 > November, shuttles will depart from all hotels for the HICC at 07:45 > Hyderabad, shuttles will return from the HICC to all hotels at 18:30 > Hyderabad. Details on the shuttle services can be found at: > https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann57_ > hotel_shuttles_06_webversion.pdf > <https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann57_hotel_shuttles_06_we…> > > - > - Coffee and breakfast breads will be served prior to the meeting > starting. > - > - To be respectful of those participating remotely we will be > following our schedule very closely. As such the first session will begin > at 0900 Hyderabad. > > > *CCWG-Accountability Agenda for Face to Face meeting 2 November 2106 – > ICANN 57 Hyderabad* > > > 9.00 – Session 1 > > • Introduction and General Administration (10’) > > • PCST report – 5’ > > • CCWG-Acct. reporting Dashboard – finalization for publication > (15’) > > • ATRT2 update presentation (10’) > > • ATRT3 discussion following Board response to our request (15’) > > • WS1 Implementation - IRP supplementary rules – 2nd reading (35’) > > 10.30 Coffee break > > 10:45 - Session 2 > > • WS1 Implementation – IRP panelist expression of interest – 2nd > reading (30’) > > • Guidelines for Good faith– discussion – 45’ > > • Buffer (15’) > > 12.15 Lunch > > 13:15 Session 3 > > • Exchange with ICANN CEO re: new complaints office and > interaction with WS2, especially staff acct and Ombudsman – 60’ > > • SO/AC Accountability : draft questions to SOs and ACs - 2nd > reading – 45’ > > • Transparency subgroup proposals – 2nd reading – 45’ > > 15:45 Coffee break > > 16:00a Session 4 > > • Update on the progress of the Jurisdiction subgroup – 30’ > > • Requests for external support / advice : Ombudsman (External > review), Human right, Legal Committee (45’) > > 17:15 AOB (15’) > > 17:30 Conclusion and key messages for co-chairs’ publication (30’) > > 18.00 End of meeting > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs >

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-FacetoFaceMeeting-ICANN57-Hyderabad Draft Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 26, 2016

Oct. 26, 2016

All, Please find below and attached the draft agenda for our Face to Face meeting in Hyderabad for your comments. Please note the following regarding timing and transportation from the plenary yesterday: - Please note that ICANN Shuttles will be operating on a reduced schedule for the Face to Face meeting on November 2nd in Hyderabad. On 2 November, shuttles will depart from all hotels for the HICC at 07:45 Hyderabad, shuttles will return from the HICC to all hotels at 18:30 Hyderabad. Details on the shuttle services can be found at: https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann57_hotel_shuttles_06_we… - - Coffee and breakfast breads will be served prior to the meeting starting. - - To be respectful of those participating remotely we will be following our schedule very closely. As such the first session will begin at 0900 Hyderabad. *CCWG-Accountability Agenda for Face to Face meeting 2 November 2106 – ICANN 57 Hyderabad* 9.00 – Session 1 • Introduction and General Administration (10’) • PCST report – 5’ • CCWG-Acct. reporting Dashboard – finalization for publication (15’) • ATRT2 update presentation (10’) • ATRT3 discussion following Board response to our request (15’) • WS1 Implementation - IRP supplementary rules – 2nd reading (35’) 10.30 Coffee break 10:45 - Session 2 • WS1 Implementation – IRP panelist expression of interest – 2nd reading (30’) • Guidelines for Good faith– discussion – 45’ • Buffer (15’) 12.15 Lunch 13:15 Session 3 • Exchange with ICANN CEO re: new complaints office and interaction with WS2, especially staff acct and Ombudsman – 60’ • SO/AC Accountability : draft questions to SOs and ACs - 2nd reading – 45’ • Transparency subgroup proposals – 2nd reading – 45’ 15:45 Coffee break 16:00a Session 4 • Update on the progress of the Jurisdiction subgroup – 30’ • Requests for external support / advice : Ombudsman (External review), Human right, Legal Committee (45’) 17:15 AOB (15’) 17:30 Conclusion and key messages for co-chairs’ publication (30’) 18.00 End of meeting Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 11 | 25 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #11 here; https://community.icann.org/x/LhO4Aw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items Question - avri doria: is Jorge question a Legal staff question or a Board question? Support to ask this question to ICANN Legal · ACTION ITEM for Staff to ask this question of ICANN Legal Notes 1. Administrivia Role call to be made from the logs Agenda no changes proposed Note comment - Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly consider my suggestion made at last meeting i.e. whenever we quote a text from Bylaws in second column, in third column ,if there is no comment to the quoted text we should indicate no interpretation is required 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI: Members of the drafting team asked to provide comments on the draft: Greg provide a summary and noted the forth column that was added of newly suggested text added by the group. Includes both commentary and discussion, some of the text has ot been entirely discussed but is still a working progress. Fourth column is more logistical than substantive. Noted Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the doc on screen is not the last one - it does not include my comments and contributions of today Latest document located at: Tatiana Tropina: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-ZUNii4iVd-jQwx9eZ01…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> a.‘within the scope of its Mission’ Greg read the text from "within the scope of its Mission" Question raised by Jorge regarding the text on the screen reflect the changes as of yesterday evening but they do not include the other work that was included today. Appears to be going towards consensus on this section Kavouss Question raised on where the text originated from - the new bylaws or from where? In particular kin the fourth column and should not deviate from the bylaws. Greg - Response as a general matter this in interpretative guidance and need t move beyond the actual guidance of the text to a context of a framework that is value neutral in approaching the topic. Question - Tatiana Tropina: No, I just wanted to ask - Kavouss do you want to replace "consider" with "respect"? I don't have a problem with this. I think we can do so. This is the product of the drafting team and their consideration of the materials and their thoughts. Comments from Kavouss Arasteh: Greg I do not agree with your argument that we interpret "Respect" meaning " consider" Response Tatiana Tropina: Kavouss, we will analyze your comment. I made a note in the document. The drafting team will consider alternatives when continuing its work on the draft and will look to try an be clear with regarding to what ICANN is doing. b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ Greg introduced the core value section, this is where we get to the point of human rights as a core value, and it needs to be applied through interpretive rules with all the core values and commitments. its still a work in progress. Do have balancing test requirement here and that they is no hierarchy among the core values. Important that the text be clear. Jorge comment - text agreed to by the drafting team more or less - however will benefit from overview by ICANN Legal on core values and the balancing text but on the question between commitment and core values in the Mission part of the bylaws. Relationship shold be consistent between core values and commitment. No document that explains the approach to managing core values and commitments. Comments Tatiana Tropina: agree with Greg and the balancing issue with the core values Jorge - Noted question to be asked of ICANN Legal - will provide in chat Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): question for ICANN Legal: what is their approach on the relationship between commitments and core values in general; and the HR core value and commitments in particular. Question - avri doria: is Jorge question a Legal staff question or a Board question? Support to ask this question to ICANN Legal ACTION ITEM for Staff to ask this question of ICANN Legal It was noted - Kavouss Arasteh: What does worry me is that we modify the Bylaws through this interpretation where as we need to maintain the Bylaw and provide clarification and further exploring the initial text Note more work may be required on balancing test c.‘respecting’ Tatiana - comment on red n=highlight in the document, text and thoughts are quire long and still disagreement in the drafting team on the draft text. If considered negative obligations and ICANN would not have any actions to take to respect human rights, is positive obligations in policy and decision making processes includes core values intended to guide ICANN in its decision making. It was proposed that the text cold be combined to contain both positive and negative approaches. It was noted - Brett Schaefer: Tatiana, the bylaw says that HR creates no obligation. Why are we discussing positive and negative obligations? Jorge - comments, as you can see still disagreement within the drafting group and the way the ideas are expressed. Agreement in the notion that respecting Human Rights has both positive and negative sides. Respecting in positive light provides. It was noted that the Ruggie Principles are relevant to the framework of interpretation as there are lots of places where these principles have been supported. Suggestions on text in the fourth column, happy to work with other members on text for this column beyong the small group working on the drafting Comments on the text provided - Kavouss Arasteh: Para. 1.2 viii has been combined with para. 1.2 c and made a mixture of up - not interpretation Greg - comment - lost of discussion in the chat this is why its important to figure out what is meant by applicable law. This is a key to the bylaw the way its is drafted. Hope to avoid loop holes or fuzzy language. Neils - Point raised regarding Ruggie and why expliced denouncement of Ruggie is noted. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Well I do not agree with "denouncing" the UNGP... as may be clear by now... Kavouss Arasteh: some people were categorically against use of Ruggy principles''' Greg - not a compliance test Neils - need to understand why its noted that Ruggie is applicable of not, could use it to address respect Tatiana Tropina noted that many voices to consider when applying Ruggie and the groups needs to look at alternative approaches, specifically with respect Neils need to consider different places to obtain definitions of respect Brettt - confused by discussing on obligations that are broader than what has been laid out by the Mission and applicable law d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’ Drafting team overview of the section -Tatiana related to the ICANN core vlaue and instruments create obligations for states scope of national law can be very broad. This should not be read in isolisation and should be read with applicable law. Depending on the jurisdiction in which ICANN operates may impact the applicable Human Rights that are applied Noted - Kavouss Arasteh: if everybody is in favour of saying international convention (s) have been drafted for obligatory application for states and thus do not address ICANN concerns, just plainly and clearly say that and put it to public comment and see reactionsa e. ‘as required by applicable law’ f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission’ g. ‘or beyond obligations found in applicable law’ h. ‘or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’ 3. AOB

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Meeting #7_25 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #7 – 25 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BRC4Aw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 40 participants at start of call. 1. Introductions and Updates to Statements of Interest Mathieu Weill: Thomas Rickert audio only. No changes to SOI. 2. ICANN Standards of Behavior for Meetings Leon Sanchez:(review of ICANN standards of behaviour slide). Avri Doria: who enforces the SOB? Leon Sanchez: per rules the Co-Chairs can address issues raised with respect to these. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: The co chairs per our charter Avri Doria: i figured i would ask since i was surprised we were being reminded of them. so that means in the subgroups, it is the rapporteurs? Herb Waye Ombuds: @Avri, people are always free to come to me 3. Review of Action Items from Plenary Leon Sanchez:1 we have received a number of these. 2 We have received this confirmation yesterday of funding of Ombuds review - details to be confirmed.3 ATRT3 conflicts - note from the Chair of the ICANN Board. Steve DelBianco [CSG]: regarding the Crocker letter: To the extent that CCWG represents the community, we have already indicated our preference for ATRT3. --> Option 3 - Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations 4. Update from the IRP group Mathieu Weill: Rapporteur for IOT Becky Burr will present the update. Becky Burr: (presentation of slides). Deadline to file. propose Alternative 2 modifying the 24 months to be 12 months. David McAuley (RySG): I was one of those supporting alternative two, agree with Becky Farzaneh Badii: There was a conversation about time bar on the mailing list. Are we going to revive the conversation there, or are we deciding here? Alan Greenberg: There is a case recently on an implementation plan on Thick WHOIS - registries published an objection and filed an RFR simultaneously. When is the starting point is the issue. Becky Burr: In this case it would have been when the final decision on the implementation plan has been confirmed. Farzaneh Badii: Alternative 2 makes sense to me Becky Burr: we are doing a first read to finalize in Hyderabad Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Farzaneh, Becky suggest alt 2 + 12 months as compromise Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu, perhaps you put ALT 2 WITH 12 MONTHS FOR REACTION OF THEGROUP AT FIRST READING BUT WE SHOULD NOT GET TO REDISCUSS THAT Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Noted Kavouss Kavouss Arasteh: I think the suggestion made by Becky take care of concerns expressed with some embeded flexibility Mathieu Weill: BB suggestion accepted as a first reading conclusion. Becky Burr: Cross Examination. (presentation of slide and 3 options). Recommend mixture of 1 and 2 - use extraordinary test for witnesses and if so up to the panel discretion (alt 2) if cross examinations allowed. Brett Schaefer: Would the IRP be the first time that a complainant would be able to challenge the ICANN decision directly? If so, iI think they should be able to ask direct questions and challenge conclusions of ICANN Board/Legal directly. Robin Gross: That seems fair, Brett. Mathieu Weill: First reading completed per BB's suggestion. Becky Burr: will circulate the new wording. 3rd item, new rules impact on current IRP cases. Kavouss Arasteh: Generally speaking no rule or provision should have retroactive application unless legislator prove that such retroactivity is fundamental Avri Doria: the point is we allow retroactivetivity to future changes, so do not understand why it cannot be applied now. Kavouss Arasteh: We need to agree on something which is clear, precise and not subject to additional conditions. We should not allow any retroactivity at all. Avri Doria: we were only talking about case in progress, why does it affect closed cases? Becky Burr: @AD - no only open cases. Kavouss Arasteh: Please do not make the Rules complex and nonunderstandable for those who do not have such legal support as some people has. Becky Burr: understand this - this is a complex legal problem - the standard solution is the rules in place when you file are the rules for the case. I am recommending this. Cherine Chalaby: Becky +1 . In my opinion it is never a good idea to apply rules retrospectively Avri Doria: that was fast Brett Schaefer: Could the ongoing cases be given option on which standards to use? Kavouss Arasteh: Cherine +1 as I said exactly the same legal view Avri Doria: I had draft language in the group that I wish had not been thrown out. but will not stop progress because of this problem. Avri Doria: I do object, but not formally. Brett Schaefer: Unless the new standard is applied universally, we would be having two processes going either way. Avri Doria: we will have that condition Brett. Mathieu Weill: Can this be considered the first reading (no objections). What about panelist selection? Becky Burr: David McAuley has drafted a document which will be presented in Hyderabad. Mathieu Weill: Excellent. Conclusions: -Deadline to File: alternative 2 but change 24 months to12 months from final decision. -Cross examination of witnesses: TBD by the IRP Panel if the extraordinary standard test for in person is met. -IRP in process: use the existing rules. No retroactive application. 5. Reports from Subgroups as to the progress of the work, issues that need to be noted and outreach/liaison requests. a) Transparency – 1st reading Michael Karanicolas: (presentation of document and process). Kavous Arasteh: Suggest accept document but it is too big for a first reading. Farzaneh Badii: Michael, is your group at recommendation stage? Farzaneh Badii: I am skeptical about some of these recommendations. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Michael: does the report basically say that all formal interactions between SOs/ACs and the Board are fully transparent? Chris Wilson: Fair point, Kavouss. Michael Karanicolas: Yes, Farzaneh - recommendations are down at the end Sebastien Bachollet: There are overlaps with these recommendations and am looking forward at how we will organize inter-group work. Leon Sanchez: we will review again in Hyderabad and would be ok to be a first reading when considering this is not a final acceptance but rather getting ready for public comments. Michael Karanicolas: Mark - subject to the exceptions in the DIDP Brett Schaefer: I agree with Kavouss since there are still outstanding questions in the text to be addressed. Michael Karanicolas: These specify, in part, that information shouldn't be disclosed if it would harm the deliberative/decision making processes Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Thanks Michael - good to know! Michael Karanicolas: I don't think a review/reading now would preclude further discussion Steve DelBianco [CSG]: recommendations begin at page 16, if you want to see where Transparency is headed. Kavouss Arasteh: lEON, i DO NOT TAKE IT AS READY FOR FIRST READING Michael Karanicolas: As I mentioned, we need to expand substantially on a few areas, particularly connected to proactive disclosure Steve DelBianco: Have you considered those who have had bad experiences with the existing DIDP on the group? Michael Karanicolas: We have considered the input from people with those complaints. We are focused on how the policy should be improved. We recieved detailed feedback from Ed Morris on this report. Kavouss Arasteh: Mic. we appreciate yr efforts but we need time to carefully review that Michael Karanicolas: Please - we welcome review and further comments, of course Michael Karanicolas: At Hyderabad, or beforehand via email Chris Wilson: Agreed. This is far from final. Leon Sanchez: Note Kavouss' objection but will proceed. b) SO/AC accountability – questions to SO & ACs Mathieu Weill: Really encourage list discussion of these issues prior to Hyderabad would be best. Farzaneh Badii: (presenting the questions slides) Steve DelBianco: few elements of clarification - we are presenting these questions for avoidance of doubt to find documents we have not found or things that have not been written. Would welcome ICANN Staff supporting all SOACs identifying these documents which could then be amended for transmission by the relevant SOAC. Mathieu Weill: just asking SOACs or constituencies? Farzaneh Badii: Its up to SOACs. Kavous Arasteh: Any questions to SOACs that require investigation of other SOACs will cause problems. Per SDB we should not have parallel - staff or SOAC. Mathieu Weill: I think those concerns are addressed KA. Kavouss Arasteh: I have objection that secretariat provide any information without being verfied by the concerned SO/AC Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: That's agreed Kavouss Cherine Chelaby: questions vs charter. Steve DelBiano: review of focus of sub-group. Alan Greenberg: Bylaws are not written for this. gNSO is open to those who chose to participate - but may have responsibility beyond those. ALAC rules are different. Its ok to ask SOACs who their constituencies are and how they relate to them. Steve DelBianco [CSG]: per Alan's point, that is why our first question is, What is your interpretation of the designated community defined in the Bylaws. For example, do you view your designated community more broadly or narrowly than the Bylaws ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed, Steve that is why we are asking to seek out these variabilities. Cherine Chalaby: @Steve, thanks for your comments and understand that it is not easy to give a definitive answer at this stage Steve DelBianco [CSG]: @Cherine -- would you say we are on the right track? Kavous Arateh: Mutual accountability was settled in WS1 and should not be done in WS2. Herb Waye Ombuds: Mutual accountability will only work if all groups are on the same page regarding inclusive vs. restrictive participation. Mathieu Weill: there may be some confusion on intent but we can clear this up at the face to face meeting. Farzaneh Badii: the current suggestion for Mutual Accountability Roundtable suggested by Willie Currie is not a forum with binding decisions, it’s about sharing views and perspectives among SO/ACs. we have not yet got to discuss that in depth with the group. Farzaneh Badii: in response to"Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/AC ON ACCOUNTABILITY" , certainly when the group finalizes and decides on the role of MAR and if we should have it in place, then we can make changes. Kavouss Arasteh: Farzaneh, we should be objective, pragmatic, and no one should consistently push for the so-called “ Mutual Accountabilty" as it really does not work Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: I think there's agreement to defer the discussion on MAR at the moment. Let's follow that line Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I agree that we should be pragmatic, however, our charter has charged us with assessing Mutual Accountability Roundtable. We have to address it and come to a conclusion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Nor should any one of us push only against it when we are yet to actually discuss it in any detail at all Kavous ... Happy t end the conversation in chat here Mathieu c) Guideline for Good Faith – update Lori Schulman: (presentation of the very early draft). Robin Gross: Has the community legal team been reconstituted? I thought we agreed to do that awhile ago, but haven't seen anything further on it. Leon Sachez: Legal team will be meeting to consider these questions. this is the first request for the Legal Committee. Alan Greenberg: Discussion of the some of the issues within in the group. Do not want to be limited by needing a rationale but not a cause. Robin Gross: A dispute over facts should not prevent a removal, so I share Alan's concern. Lori Schulman: AG good point. Reason and cause are different. We should not remove a Board member arbitrarily. Robin Gross: Yes, it is "rationale" that must be provided. Kavouss Arasteh: bOARD'S REMOVAL IS A VERY DELICATE AND CRITICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON PURE THEORY WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY UNINTENDED OR CONSEQUENTAL ACTIONS THAT BE BE OCURRED IF A MISTAKE IS MADE IN OBLITRATELY MANNER d) Staff accountability – update Avri Doria: (presentation of status update document). Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/aC ON ACCOUNTABILIT" - dURING ws i , I did indicate that pursuing staff accountabilty shall not give rise t to interference with ICANNN management scheme nor disregard the hierarchy of works and responsibilities Becky Burr: ICANN staff is accountable through Reconsideration and IRP Kavouss Arasteh: Staff are accountable to their hierarchy and the Hierarchy are accountable to the community Kavouss Arasteh: Beckie ,yes Avri Doria: many of us have been in organizations where there are multiple point of staff accountability. just having one point of accountability does not seem correct to many of us. Mathieu Weill: Some of these questions would seem relevant with the ICANN CEO at our F@F meeting. Sebastien Bachollet: We will need to discuss the new Complaints Officer which is relevant to this and the Ombuds sub-group. Brett Schaefer: Becky, Dot Registry case said ICANN Legal believes that the bylaws do not apply to staff, only to the Board. An IRP only goes to bylaws violations, so how would that address staff accountability? e) Human rights – update Tijani Ben Jemaa: Niels Ten Oever has sent a status report but the conclusion is we are not ready to submit a report. David McAuley (RySG): I agree with Tijani - we are deep into discussions in the HR sub team and Niels written report is a fair assessment f) Ombudsman – update Sebastien Bachollet: (presentation of slides Little time left.) g) Jurisdiction – update Greg Shatan: (presentation of the Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): dear Greg, when was this report circulated to the subgroup? must have been lost amongst my emails... Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Jorge: also lost amongst my mails :) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Don't remember that the working doc contains exactly these conclusions... anyway it is a work in progress doc... not an agreed one Kavouss Arasteh: This merely a copy of the working doc, and does not constitute any progress report. At the last call of the Group, I said it is a good START.That being said it is far from being agreed kavous Arasteh: Main problem we have is Applicable Law. Greg Shatan: I thought "applicable law" was an issue in the HR subgroup.... Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): I could also swear that we had something on "applicable law" in one of the WS 1 memos, but I have failed to find it David McAuley (RySG): Applicable law is an active discussion in HR subteam Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Greg is right: that's a HR subgroup issue 6. Review of agenda and plan for Hyderabad Mathieu Weill: (presentation of proposed schedule) 7. Introduction of proposed CCWG-Acct Dashboard (Skipped) 8. AOB & conclusion Mathieu Weill: (none). Adjourned

1 0

TR: WS2 Transparency Subgroup First Draft Doc
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear Colleagues, It is my pleasure to forward the first draft report from one our subgroups. Congratulations to the Transparency subgroup for their ability to work efficiently and diligently on this important aspect of our work. The proposals will be discussed in our call today as a first reading, as well as in Hyderabad. Best Mathieu -----Message d'origine----- De : mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com [mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com] De la part de Michael Karanicolas Envoyé : lundi 24 octobre 2016 23:10 À : Thomas Rickert (thomas(a)rickert.net) leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx; mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Cc : Bernard Turcotte; Brenda Brewer; Karen Mulberry; ws2-transparency(a)icann.org Objet : WS2 Transparency Subgroup First Draft Doc Hi all, Please find attached a first draft of the Report from the WS2 Transparency Subgroup. I'll note that, in each section, there are one or two "Questions raised for further consideration". These generally relate to issues that were raised by the participants in our call on Friday, and which we haven't been able to resolve yet. We aim to build these into the document as discussions move forward, hopefully with input from the broader community. Best wishes - and we look forward to taking this conversation forward, Michael Karanicolas

2 2

TR: [Correspondence] Collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear Colleagues, FYI attached is a correspondence from Steve Crocker, responding to our previous letter regarding articulation between our work and ATRT3. We may not have time to discuss this during the plenary today, but will consider whether this is an appropriate discussion item for Hyderabad. Best Mathieu De : Wendy Profit [mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org] Envoyé : mardi 25 octobre 2016 00:05 À : thomas(a)rickert.net; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill Cc : katrina(a)nic.lv; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; louie(a)louie.net; patrik(a)frobbit.se; tsinha(a)umd.edu; bverd(a)verisign.com; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; cwilson(a)21cf.com; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; kdrstoll(a)gmail.com; gbunton(a)tucows.com; pdiaz(a)pir.org; mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com; hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr; sb.inapp(a)gmail.com; hcarrascob(a)gmail.com; ocl(a)gih.com; oscar(a)lacnic.net; Secretary; Theresa Swinehart; icann-board(a)icann.org; Jamie Hedlund; board-ops-team(a)icann.org Objet : [Correspondence] Collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics Dear Thomas, León and Mathieu, (cc: SO/AC Leaders and ICANN Board) Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker in response to your 08 August 2016 letter Re: CCWG Recommendation to the ICANN Board regarding ATRT3 with respect to collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics. Kind regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695

1 0

Progress report from SOAC Accountability team of CCWG WS2
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

CCWG members — in advance of our 2–Nov meeting in Hyderabad, please find 3 attached docs from the SOAC Accountability project within Work Stream 2. Keep in mind that these are works-in-progress, so we are not presenting any conclusions here. Sincerely, Farzaneh Badii, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Steve DelBianco (rapporteurs) And the SOAC Accountability team

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting on 25 October @ 13:00 UTC
by Jorge Villa Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Hi, good afternoon Please, receive my apologies for the tomorrow meeting. I won’t be able to attend this time because I’ll be conducting an IPv6 workshop from 13:30 up to 16:30 UTC. I’ve tried to reschedule it but it was impossible. I’ll check the notes later to be ready for the Hyderabad F2F meeting next week. Regards, Jorge De: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> en nombre de MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Fecha: lunes, 24 de octubre de 2016, 12:53 PM Para: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> CC: "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Asunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting on 25 October @ 13:00 UTC In preparation for your call CCWG Accountability Plenary WS2 - Meeting #7 on Tuesday, 25 October @13:00 – 15:00 UTC (time converter here), see the following proposed agenda: 1. Introductions and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. ICANN Standards of Behavior for Meetings 3. Review of Action Items from Plenary 4. Update from the IRP group 5. Reports from Subgroups as to the progress of the work, issues that need to be noted and outreach/liaison requests. 6. Review of agenda and plan for Hyderabad 7. Introduction of proposed CCWG-Acct Dashboard 8. AOB Kindest Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org | www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Proposed Agenda for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting on 25 October @ 13:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

In preparation for your call CCWG Accountability Plenary WS2 - Meeting #7 <https://community.icann.org/x/BRC4Aw> on Tuesday, 25 October @13:00 - 15:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WS2+-+CCWG+ACCOUNT…>), see the following proposed agenda: 1. Introductions and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. ICANN Standards of Behavior for Meetings 3. Review of Action Items from Plenary 4. Update from the IRP group 5. Reports from Subgroups as to the progress of the work, issues that need to be noted and outreach/liaison requests. 6. Review of agenda and plan for Hyderabad 7. Introduction of proposed CCWG-Acct Dashboard 8. AOB Kindest Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0