October 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #5 - 21 OCT 16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #5 – 21 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/jQW4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. 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> Transparency Subgroup | Meeting #5 21 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC Notes (including relevant parts of chat): Michael Karanicolas: will go through document section by section and leave some time at the end to review the process. Background - no comments. Next Reforming DIDP - questions comments? (reading comment from Brett Schaefer) Chris Wilson: From Ed: My congratulations on one of the most thorough and impressive pieces of work I’ve seen produced by an ICANN working group. I regret I haven’t been as active in this group as I had anticipated as a mixture of illness and meeting conflicts (including tonight: Friday evenings European time are just not doable for me) have limited my participation but I did want to share these thoughts with the group: 1. On page 8 there is a factual error. It is stated: “Currently, appeals against refusals or other non-compliance with the DIDP are handled by the Ombudsman”. That is not true. Appeals against a denial of information from ICANN under the DIDP are properly matters for a reconsideration request or IRP. Here is one such appeal which I wrote and was filed by the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-11-2014-02-13-en. Appellate procedures for DIDP refusals are also mentioned on the ICANN website under ‘Appeal of Denials’ here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pag Chris Wilson: Actually, he has said more, but too much to put in chat. Perhaps Bernie or Yvette and cut and past his email into the notes section or put up on screen? David McAuley: what happens when the information is public - finding it can sometimes be challenging. We should have a mechanism whereby people should not ask ICANN to do the work for them but this could be abused - so we need to be careful. Michael Karanicolas: Probably covered under Vexatious requests. No other comments. Suggest we present BF request to ICANN to see their reaction. David McAuley (RySG): I love the idea of getting ICANN feedback - good idea Chris Wilson: Good idea Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Chris +1. Avri Doria: i worry about documents that cannot be found through any search method and an expansive notion and use of vexatious are quest accusations. David McAuley (RySG): fair point Avri but ICANN would face the same hurdle, no? Avri Doria: ICANN knows what documents they have, and what they are called &c. we often don't David McAuley (RySG): what about email archives, e.g., for group like CCWG Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Michael et al: page 9, para. 3 speaks of "the Ombudsman's mandate": to be accurate, does he have a mandate resulting from a vote, or is it simply his "responsibility"? Alan Greenberg: mandate can refer to responsibility due to being elected but it also just means a commission to do something. David McAuley: refused DIDP can go to reconsideration or IRP. Michael Karanicolas: I will follow up vs EM's first comment. His second point is that we should avoid considering Human Rights as it would conflate with the discussion going on. I disagree with this - this is a fundamental responsibility of ICANN. David McAuley: I agree with EM on Human Rights. Avri Doria: agree with Ed, DIDP should stand on it on as a requirement, and given the difficulty we are having in getting ICANN to accept human rights respect, i would not like to see Transparency undercut but the lack of observance of HR. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Michael +1. We could simply mention the principle in a couple of sentences, and refer to the work in the group dealing with Human Rights. David McAuley (RySG): good point Avri - I think Avri's distinction makes sense Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Avri +1: good distinction, that's what I was suggesting. Michael Karanicolas: So we should re-frame it for a better argument for good governance (support in chat). On to point 3 - ICANN is not a nation state, IGO or NGO. He is correct but the reason we are trying to ground this in international level is that California law is quite weak in this area. David McAuley (RySG): I would be reluctant to seek legal advice on the background section of the document Jean Jacques Subrenat: there is a danger is trying to use references to IGOs etc. Rather us the notion of serving the public interest world wide. Michael Karanicolas: this is the type of statement that supports making this stronger. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Michael: I'm not suggesting we NOT mention those international law references. Rather, I plead that we ADD the unique status of ICANN and that it serves the global public interest. Michael Karanicolas: JJS suggestion seems very applicable. David McAuley (RySG): sounds fair but will depend on the wording. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Suggestion: "While fully complying with the US laws which apply to ICANN as a US corporation, the corporation has a wider responsibility towards the global Internet community worldwide. These two sets of requirements are not contradictory, but complimentary". Alan Greenberg: Our job is to come up with a reasonable level of transparency given its role. We do not have prove it has to do it vs a given law or other etc. So trying to find the rationale is the wrong tact. David McAuley (RySG): Well put, Alan. We are pursuing what amounts to a self-evident need Wale Bakare: >>I plead that we ADD the unique status of ICANN and that it serves the global public interest<< I Michael Karanicolas: grounding it back to existing standards then it looks like we are pulling this out of the air vs pointing how things are done elsewhere as best practices. Alan Greenberg: Agree with this - but we seem to be pushing this to be the basis for having to do it. Alan Greenberg: @JJS, yes, but they are not the reason that ICANN *MUST* do it rather than why they should. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Alan: nowadays, in addition to law(s), there are universal standards, norms, requirements. I agree with Michael that we should at least mention the legal references. Michael Karanicolas: Given my background I may be making these arguments too strongly so understand that. Seems to have consensus here. Back to EM comments on Appeal which he does not support what is proposed. Would be ok with a first review by an internal process. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Michael: review should be part of an escalation process; so internal redress as a first step is appropriate. @Alan: you're right, and I was not suggesting that ICANN "must"... David McAuley: IRP could be used if it violated the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation. Michael Karanicolas: who is the decision maker in the IRP? David McAuley: Panel of 3 arbitrators (details of IRP). Michael Karanicolas: This sounds good but should include requirement that the panelists should have training or knowledge of transparency issues. As such we have dealt with EM comments. Any other issues? David McAuley: Good document - on page 6 - the 3 part test - my question - what about confidentiality agreements ICANN enters into and as such are covered in this? Michael Karanicolas: this is a big issue. We should have a discussion on this. ICANN should not enter into non-disclosure unless absolutely necessary. Avri Doria: do we define what is 'absolutely necessary' Avri Doria: i think any definition has to be alterable by the community without necessarily needing to redraft bylaws. David McAuley: We could appeal to the EC on this. Chris Wilson: Do we want to at least consider certain subject matters that the presumption is against non-disclosure? Alan Greenberg: Common practice in business agreements these days. We have to accept there will have to be some level of confidential. Michael Karanicolas: not about preventing it but more about limiting it. We will have to discuss this. David McAuley (RySG): I agree with Alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): ,yup Michael Karanicolas: Pro-Active disclosure - not quite complete yet. Chris Wilson: BS has asked that we clarify that we are including Education and Engagement type vendors. Xavier Calvez has stated that these type of vendors were only for the Transition. We have to be careful that we are not too narrow in our definition. David McAuley (RySG): This is another area where it would be good to hear the ICANN perspective along the way. Jean Jacque Subrenat: In para 4 we mention IANA Transition - we should be careful that we are talking about the transition of the oversight of the IANA function. Chris Wilson: Its shorthand, but this can be cleared up in a final document. This is meant to go beyond the US govt and IANA. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Chris: we should avoid such shorthand, because this text is aimed at people, not all of whom were on the ICG, CCWG or CWG. I would insist on putting the right words. Chris Wilson: yes. understood Michael Karanicolas: want to move over to whistle blower section which is very well written. Should we support the NAVEX recommendations which is the way it is currently written? Barbara Wanner: Welcome all edits. (Comments on draft) Avri Doria: I would like to suggest an additional requirement, something like requiring that the program be audited every 3 years by an outfit such a NAVEX David McAuley (RySG): On hotline access question, I personally think this sounds like a good idea but would like to think about it further. I was able to read this good whistleblower write-up but only quickly and want to read again. Michael Karanicolas: Avri - I think we have a requirement of that, when it says that there should be subsequent audits but certainly, I think there needs more clarify on when, and I was going to ask Avri Doria: must have missed it in my quick read. apologies. Michael Karanicolas: you're suggesting 3 yrs? which seems reasonable to me Avri Doria: and i am suggesting a continuing periodic audit, not a one time of the changes we make now. David McAuley (RySG): Nicely done document, Barbara Avri Doria: i agree that the policy should be on the ICANN web site and visible to all. Ricardo Holmquist: Contractors and temporaries is fine. All business partners would include all registries and registrars which would be too large. We need to separate the business partners in those who are serviced by ICANN vs the other way around. Michael Karanicolas: Agree we need more clarity - but what is the issue of making this available to more people? what is the rationale for narrowing? David McAuley (RySG): good question to take up next call Ricardo Holmquist: I should say none, but we should divide who goes by the ombudsman, and who is going by the whistleblower Michael Karanicolas: Way forward we will review and distribute to the CCWG Monday. No objections if labelled draft. with footnote. David McAuley (RySG): sounds good Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Michael: yes for footnote. Michael Karanicolas: Adjourned.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary Meeting Tuesday 25 October 2016 1300UTC
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

All, Please note that the Co-Chairs have confirmed that there will be a plenary meeting on Tuesday 25 October 2016 1300UTC so we can complete preparations for the Face to Face meeting in Hyderabad. You will be receiving a formal calendar invite to this meeting as per usual procedures. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support to the CCWG-Transition for the Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 20 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #10 – 20 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQS4Aw 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 1. Quick turn around for the group to submit comments on questions sent to the list so they can be sent to the SO/AC Leadership for responses. Notes Attendance will be taken from the list of participants in the Adobe Connect rm. Cheryl noted an update to SOI as has an additional role at ICANN No apologies noted. 1. Review (brief) of last call #9 Started reviewing Staff paper and reviewing the questions to SO/AC for feedback 2. Discussion Topics a) Final Review and Discussion on Draft text of questions to be sent to SO/ACs - Review of the designated community members - noted that this has been captured in the Google doc according and lists groups according to the bylaws. The document is located at Our Google Doc is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xigRIH7gE8NXEf6I0asyM6rUbGmbzHFcy0RGUZA… Farzaneh - Review of the Google doc as there are some terms that need to be clarified. Replaced questions with questions prepared by Giovanni as the new baseline and revised based on group discussion. Will then start work on Steve's questions. If groups agrees the final questions will be sent tomorrow to the mailing list and will allow the group sometime to review before finalizing them for sending them to the SO/AC Leadership. Kavouss - noted that the questions may be mixed up with the transparency group and how decision making is accountability. Giovanni questions are mixed up. Sebastien - Noted that are inter-relations between the topics. It is also important to get the views of the SO/ACs on these questions. the groups can then determine the way to use the response. Kavouss - Noted that election is not accountability CLO - the questions should be an opportunity for the SO/ACs to inform the group of their accountability processes and procedures. Noted from the chat - Rinalia Abdul Rahim: As I recall, the accountability framework that WS1 had looked at included 4 aspects: Transparency, Consultation/Participation, Appeal and Redress. Questions for SO/AC that fall along this frame about their accountability to their stakeholders are appropriate to my mind. CLO Noted that the responses are expected to be due 1 November Kavouss - proposed to remove transparency, in particular put question 3 in brackets. Poll taken to agree to removing the word transparency from the document. - small group on the call did not support removing transparency, will send the poll out to the list for further consideration b) Discussion of Points for Interim Reporting and Matters for Discussion by our WT in Hyderabad CLO - ask to send interim report for the group to the CCWG Plenary for the Hyderabad F2F meeting. Farzaneh read the text of the proposed progress report for group consideration. Chairs are continuing to prepare the progress report and will finalize it tomorrow. The current draft of the progress report is located on the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/vQS4Aw 3. AOB - No new business noted 4. Review of Any Action Items Next Meeting, 27 October @ 13:00 UTC Proposed keeping the groups frequency and timing of calls going forward keeping the regular schedule of meetings. Discussion of meeting in Hyderabad part of the plenary discussion. ACTION ITEMS 1. Quick turn around for the group to submit comments on questions sent to the list so they can be sent to the SO/AC Leadership for responses. Documents Presented **drafts that are posted are static views of the master text that is being edited in the groups Google doc and may not reflect on going edits and changes · Draft Community Questions for Comments<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62391485/ACSO_AcctDRAFTcom…> · Progress-report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62391485/Progress-report.d…> · CCWGWS2projectonSOACAccountability-reportv1 19Oct2016.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62391485/CCWGWS2projectonS…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #8 | 20 October16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #8 | 20 October 16 will be available here; https://community.icann.org/x/-RC4Aw The copy of the notes can be found below. Thank you! Brenda & Yvette Notes (Including relevant parts of chat): 24 participants at start of call ________________________________ 1. Welcome Apologies: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Greg Shatan: Update from leadership call earlier this week. Looking for more participation from participants. Comments will be removed once the document is completed. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would request staff and/or the rapporteur to take on board also the comments on the margin. Greg Shatan: do not agree. If you have text please enter it. Vinay Kesari: Agree with Greg on Jorge's point - it would be difficult for staff/ rapporteurs to do that without inserting their own value judgments (except where it's a pure copy-paste of a comment into the body). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I understand that we have to include our comments not as "comments", but as "suggestions" - otherwise valuable efforts and time are lost. Vinay Kesari: Jorge - absolutely. Farzaneh Badii: Vinay you need to put the doc on comment mode. That way automatically goes on suggestion mode when people sign in Kavouss Arasteh: We are not making progress. We have multiple fronts - there is no focusing on a given topic and we do not seem to be progressing on any of them. What should we focus on to have some progress? We need to prioritize. Farzaneh Badii: it's ok Greg. No group is making progress in some people's views. David McAuley: Could use a tutorial on google docs. Also GS how do we want to use the Google docs? Bernie Turcotte: Staff will post links to tutorials that are available (action item) Greg Shatan: Review of Google Docs modes. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: If an alternative to google docs can be sought, I would be grateful. I have issues accessing it from work. Kavouss Arasteh: I have serious difficulties to have access to GD Parminder: I think that while entering into the google doc is necessary to have a collaborative document move along, it may be useful to get the important issues/ arguments/ justifications also to the enlist so that others can see and if needed weigh in on. Kavouss Arasteh: We have been working during WS1 in 3 Cross Community Group with redline doc. and everybody was happy Farzaneh Badii: I agree with that Parminder, I think we can discuss the most pressing issues on the mailing list as well Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would also like to respectfully request that some empathy is developed and displayed for those of us who are not us law specialists - i.e. that an effort is made to understand the issue presented, without entering in endless debates about the exact meaning something has under US law specifically. Tijani Ben Jemaa: I remind everyone that ICANN makes Wiki tool that is available to all and works fine as this is what we use in ALAC. Farzaneh Badii: hmm I wonder if we really needed to spend 30 minutes discussing usage of google doc. Kavouss Arasteh: It is frustrating that at 8th meeting we are discussing "working Method "+ Farzaneh Badii: you bring it up Kavouss. 2. Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction. Matthew Shears: Greg do you think it is possible at this juncture to clean this doc up and post again as a consolidated text for comment Kavouss Arasteh: Why are these things layers of jurisdiction? Greg Shatan: this is based on the requirements of WS1 Recommendation 12 on Jurisdiction. Kasvouss Arasteh: would it not be to have this in tabular form where we could separate what is from the Annex 12 and then another column for comments etc. Similarly to what was done in Human Rights. Greg Shatan: this is different from the HR work which is charged with interpreting a Bylaws text. I will work on integrating comments etc. the next version of the layers document. 3. The influence of ICANN's existing jurisdictions relating to resolution of disputes (i.e., choice of law and venue) on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. David McAuley: This document gets, in part, to the notion of venue. IRP will be venue-less with the new rules. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to David for that info. What about the language of the proceedings? The rule is English, what about additional "official ICANN languages"? Farzaneh Badii: where can we enforce the award, and would online hearing be accepted as hearing in some jurisdictions? David McAuley (RySG): I better check on that Jorge rather than rely on memory - will do that and come to list with that Q+A Farzaneh Badii: I think it makes sense to be in English. Lowers the costs in general. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): And lowers the accessibility for many stakeholders Farzaneh Badii: not for many. That's an exaggeration. Which led ICANN to translate many things to 6 languages and their usage is absolutely unknown Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): dear Farzaneh: language is an issue, for instance for many GAC members - before making general assertions we would need some data. Farzaneh Badii: yes exactly Jorge - so let's get the data then talk about accessibility. David McAuley (RySG): Jorge: Bylaw Article 4.3(l) says this: All IRP proceedings shall be administered in English as the primary working language, with provision of translation services for Claimants if needed. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I guess that working in your mother language or at least one of the official languages helps for starters. That English is accessible for all interested is what would need to be supported by data, if you permit Farzaneh Badii: David, is it possible at this stage of IRP group work, to talk about enforcement? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Dear David, I suggest that you take that issue on board - at least to consider it, thanks! David McAuley (RySG): Will do what I can and keep you informed Jorge. Not sure what latitude there is now. Christopher Wilkinson: @Bylaw Article 4.3(l): That would not be acceptable in Europe in my experience. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: @David: thx! Please keep me posted... Greg Shatan: Discussion of draft document. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: when hearings are made electronically, what is the venue that is considered legally? Farzaneh Badii: yes, online hearing might not be accepted in some jurisdictions Greg Shatan: there have been contributions on this document and would ask everyone to go through these and make comments or add text. Vinay Kesari: Farzi, I think they have gone on record stating that local law would apply in some matters such as employment law, property law (with respect to renting premises for example). My last comment was in response to your earlier comment on jurisdictions where ICANN has offices, not incorporated Tijani Ben Jemaa: With IRP there is a standing panel. As to the type of disputes - there is something missing here - what about applicants for new gTLDs who are not contracted parties? Greg Shatan: I am uncertain about TBJ assertion that ICANN incorporation means IRP is California jurisdiction. Christopher Wilkinson: It would be very reassuring to confirm that IRP is NOT subject to CA law. The MAIN point about IRP is to ensure that it is accessible and affordable for ALL eventual complainants, including private individuals. CW Parminder: IRP is ICANN's internal arrangement. I am not sure it is an issue of jurisdiction, to be considered here. Farzaneh Badii: so there can be a choice of substantive law for IRP? Farzaneh Badii: IRP is not internal management Parminder it's like arbitration Parminder: Yes, appeal against or for enforcement of IRP decisions may be an issue of jurisdiction Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: IRP is a legal accountability mechanism with jurisdictional aspects Farzaneh Badii: it's binding I think, there might not be an appeal Greg Shatan 2: Influence/Effect/Consequence are all possibilities. Farzaneh Badii: so there can be a choice of substantive law for IRP? Kavouss Arasteh: We are moving in the right direction. We should not use the word Influence. David McAuley: The standing panel will be selected considering diversity. IRP cases will be decided vs the Bylaws and not any local laws. Greg Shatan 2: Q: What substantive law is applied in an IRP? However, we have to be careful with IRP given there is another group working on it. Kavouss Arasteh: re TBJ question is an important question and should be looked again and answered. Greg Shatan: will include this. David McAuley (RySG): Bylaw Article 4.3(v) is relevant here - I will read it is short. If push comes to shove the panel may have to address. Also rules say it will be a DeNovo decision. 4. Preparation of Status Report before Hyderabad Greg Shatan: Will draft a document and circulate for comment. 5. Hyderabad: What do want to accomplish in F2F? Kavouss Arasteh: Major questions should be brought up and we need to identify these before going to Hyderabad Tijani Bern Jemaa: There is no meeting of sub-groups. If there is a sub-group meeting, we have to know so we can prepare. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: we need to engage in a fact finding exercise at some point of time, including on how well stakeholders have fared and perceived existing rules on applicable law, both in judicial, arbitration and internal mechanisms (such as IRP) Bernard Turcotte: there are no facilities or time available for sub-group meetings in Hyderabad. Greg Shatan: We should start thinking what questions we will have for ICANN legal and expert external legal advice. Everyone please continue to contribute. Adjourned - we have a meeting next week. Action Items: Staff to post links to tutorials on using Google Docs Greg Shatan to post draft status report for Hyderabad to group for comments by end of weekend.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - Update
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

All, At the meeting of the CCWG-Accountability leadership (Co-Chairs and rapporteurs) on 18 October to prepare for the plenary of 19 October, the rapporteurs updated the group on progress and it was agreed that there was not enough material to hold that plenary and it was agreed by all that it should be cancelled. Following the announcement of the cancellation of the 19 October plenary meeting of the CCWG the Co-Chairs wished to inform participants of the current status of activities: - Each WS2 sub-group is expected to produce a status report for the end of this week. This report will be the basis of the progress report at the face to face meeting and should include any significant issues the sub-group wishes to present to the full CCWG-Accoutability at the Face to Face meeting in Hyderabad. - Given the potential overlap of the newly announced Complaints Officer with the work of several of the WS2 sub-groups the Co-Chairs will be inviting the ICANN CEO to come and discuss details relating to this new position with the CCWG at the Face to Face meeting in Hyderabad (TBC). - A number of rapporteurs also noted that there were significant engagement issues with their participants resulting in the rapporteurs having to do most of the writing. It is important to remember that Participants (as opposed to Observers) in sub-groups are expected to contribute to the development of the reports and other documents. As such the leadership will discuss with the plenary how best to re-energize participants in WS2 at its next meeting.The leadership agreed that if there was no or little community interest in a specific the topic that it should be re-allocated to another review process outside of the CCWG-Accountability. - The CCWG-Accountability continues to await a response from the Board on its request wrt ATRT3. - The Co-Chairs are currently considering holding a plenary prior to the Hyderabad Face to Face meeting on Tuesday 25 October 1300 UTC and will advise the CCWG if this meeting will be held by the EOB on Thursday 20 October 2016. The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Thomas, Mathieu and Leon.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 18 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Hello all, Please see the revised notes for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #10 here; https://community.icann.org/x/5xC4Aw The revised notes are also listed below. Thank you! Brenda Notes Human Rights Meeting #10 (18 October @ 19:00 UTC) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 21 participants at beginning of call. 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever: Nothing to report from attendees. No changes to the agenda. I have produced a draft update report for the CCWG and have distributed to this group for comments. David McAuley: Ruggie 13A we are not of one mind of what “address” means. Niels ten Oever: was not trying to present it as such. If you have edits please propose them. Also anyone if welcome to propose edits. Kavous Arasteh: Would kindly ask English speakers to speak slowly so non-English speakers can properly understand those comments. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): good point from Kavouss - especially late at night it is sometimes difficult to follow native speakers :-) 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI a. within the scope of its Mission Greg Shatan: We have simply imported the relevant parts of the mission as we did not believe there was a need for additional interpretation as this is essentially self-explanatory. Tatiana Tropina: Support GS. Jorge Cancio: Support and remind all it is critical that we are bound by the mission. Kavous Arasteh: While nothing wrong with that quotation, I wonder whether we need that as it is not any interpretation? Brett Schaefer: After reading through the document, I think it would be extremely helpful if we could delete parts of the text that everyone has moved on from and provide a summary of comments/arguments with attribution. The current document has too much comment repletion and edited text to be readily accessible. Tatiana Tropina: Brett, I agree. Four columns and old text is really confusing. We can create a cleaner clone and save this one for the record. John Laprise: +1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Agree with Brett that the text is still difficult. Rapporteur and/or staff could do a bit more of cleaning. Tatiana Tropina: We may not need to have the Bylaws text in the document (– we could consider simply inserting text that states that every case wrt Human Rights consideration vs ICANN activities and policy making has to be checked or tested for mission limitations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): cleaner version would be appreciated yes please links to the bylaw secions makes sense, but this doc is early version so I thank you all for this Tatiana Tropina: agree. Kavouss Arasteh: (poor audio) whenever we quote bylaws, mission etc. in left hand column – on the right hand side if there is no interpretation is required we simply insert this “no interpretation required”. Tatiana Tropina: We will certainly look at that. Thanks Kavouss. b. within the scope of other Core Values Greg Shatan: In contrast to the mission limitation it was felt that the Core Values statement did require interpretation. There is text about how to use the balancing test/guide. This was not agreed by all in the drafting team. Core values are more complex than the mission. We then quote the remaining Core Values. So this is a framework of interpretation. We can look at not quoting these once we complete the document given that at that point links may be sufficient. Tatiana Tropina: I strongly support Greg's position. The core values are defined in the bylaws and it's hard to say that they are not what they are. Nigel Roberts: Have a successful meeting. I have to leave now. Jorge Cancio: There is common ground with GS here. I have been asking this group to request from ICANN legal how they intend to manage the balancing test for this Core Value. It would be important to have that response for several reasons – mainly that the framework of interpretation must consider all the Core Values as well as the Mission. As such before making any interpretation of the HR Core Value we need to have the opinion from ICANN Legal and how they propose to help the Board apply this. This being said there were some points I could not agree with GS given the text seemed to diminish the HR Core Value. Another point at issue – there is no hierarchy of Core Values and saying they are all equal may be premature. However, agree that a Core Value is different than a commitment and needs a balancing test. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was a response from ICANN legal. It arrived just prior to one of our calls There was specific language from ICANN Legal as to this ByLaw. Karen Mulberry: This was sent by ICANN Legal on 20 Sept in response to a HR request. Dear HR-Subgroup members,I understand that the question posed was "'What is the rationale for the addition of 'core values' to the ICANN bylaws, and what are its legal and non-legal implications in your opinion, especially for the human rights bylaw?”The Core Values have historically been part of the ICANN Bylaws, introduced after the ICANN evolution and reform effort in 2002,https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-15dec02-en.htm. From 2002 through the Bylaws as they exist today, the Core Values remained unchanged, with the following as guidance for the application of Core Values: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors. the statement - With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed. Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments. The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other.The inclusion of the Human Rights commitment as a Core Value, which was expressly required in Annex 6 of the WS1 report, assures that it is an item that is considered while ICANN is performing its Mission. The implication of this is strong, particularly where the FOI considers how to guide the interpretation of this obligation. Of course, there are already legal obligations that are tethered to human rights obligations (for example, observing laws against human trafficking) that ICANN is already following. Given the long-standing nature of the Core Values section of the ICANN Bylaw Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with balancing test. The balancing also needs to be consistent with ICANN existing processes. So, for example, there is a balancing that goes on with respect to PDP work. Tatiana Tropina: I support GS position. When I look at the ICANN Legal reply – I strongly disagree that some Core Values are more important than others. I have no issue with asking ICANN Legal for more information but it should not be the same question. We should be seeking guidance on the application of these Core Values. Core Values are not the same as Commitments and the interpretation of Core Values will require some flexibility which will depend on many factors which may be active at the time there is a requirement to interpret. To me Core Values look to be rather self-explanatory the only thing that is needed is some guidance wrt their application. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): To sum up - I feel we have common ground on what it means that the Human Rights is a core value here - but the devil is in the details and some rather absolute characterizations of the HR Core Value. Kavous Arasteh: Do agree there is a difference between Core Values. Do not agree we should seek views of legal but we should not seek advice, views yes, but not advice. Should not state that the Core Values cannot be applied consistently. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): and we need to have clarity on the general relationship between commitments and core values, a question that goes beyond the Human Rights Core Value - and a consistent approach would surely be needed for all core values and commitments, not just the Human Rights one Greg Shatan: I agree in part with KA, There is no hierarchy in the Core Values and they have to be interpreted on a case by case basis. Kavous Arasteh: (audio issues). Just take out the square brackets. Tijani Ben Jemaa: glad we are progressing well. I completely agree with the Mission and Core Values text and support what GS has said. Greg Shatan: I think it's important to see the Core Values in the larger context, especially since Commitments and Core Values are subparts of the same section. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree, Greg. But this is not specific to the HR FoI... but a general question about core values and commitments. Brett Schaefer: Just to clarify, the balancing is between the different Core Values only? It is clear and agreed that the Core Values are secondary to Commitments and can under no circumstances violate the Mission? I ask because it is not clear that that is the case based on the reading and discussion Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I think that is the case, Brett Brett Schaefer: I am not sure how helpful the ICANN legal contribution (higher in the chat) is considering this statement: "Because they [core values] are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors" Avri Doria: I have trouble understanding how any core principle can trump human rights. but maybe in time i can understand something like that. stranger things have happened. Brett Schaefer: Seems like we are trying to define something ICANN sees as very malleable. c. Respecting Tatiana Tropina: This is one of the more controversial issues for the drafting group. We believe the Bylaws use the term Respect to be in contrast to the Enforcement of Human Rights. It remains unclear if the Ruggie Principles can be the only reference. Jorge Cancio: There is a lot of common ground and we are not so far apart. We are in agreement on the parameters of the Bylaws text to guide Respect. We also agree that ICANN will not enforce Human Rights. We also agree that the Ruggie Principles are an important source. The main area of contention is that I do not believe that Respect can only mean not violating – that would be an overly restrictive interpretation – It would be like saying we abstain from violating Human Rights. It is important to note that the Ruggie Principles do not have enforcement requirements for business partners – only moral obligations. For me respect has both a negative interpretation of not violating or infringing but also a positive interpretation of adjusting and promoting your activities in a way that is Human Rights conscious and our interpretation should cover both. Avri Doria: accepting UNGP as a source is quite a step forward. perhaps not enough, but something Tatiana Tropina: I suggested to convert "abstaining" into the positive interpretation "taking into consideration in the policy making etc." Niels ten Oever: Excellent Tatiana Tropina: but that shall be balanced with core values and with mission Tatiana Tropina: I can suggest the text for the next meeting Lee Hibbard: the point is that the UNGPs sets out the standard of expectations with regard to human rights. This expectation extends to ICANN to the extent that it can be considered as an economic actor, just like it extends to an organization like FIFA, it is reasonable to expect that ICANN is a major economic actor and that it seeks to avoid doing harm to human rights in its activities and through its business relationships Tatiana Tropina: something like Tatiana Tropina: “taking into account the necessity to balance the Human Rights core value with other core values, ICANN should take into account human rights in developing its policies and in decision-making processes”. Very rough thought. Kavous Arasteh: Ruggie Principles – We should say that we have considered various sources including the Ruggie Principles but these are not applicable wholesale to ICANN. But we could say that these are applicable under specified conditions. David McAuley: I am concerned about comments regarding mitigating Human Rights issues. Bastiaan Goslings: It’s an interesting almost philosophical discussion about ‘respecting’ in the google-doc, and I do not want to be a party pooper Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think respecting means we will in fact perform the balancing act we have all been discussing. Brett Schaefer: +1 David, mitigating or addressing implies ICANN would action. This goes against the text of the draft bylaw. Bastiaan Goslings: But I wonder, when looking at the Human Rights core value, whether the ‘respecting’ can be separated from the ‘as required by’ as currently is done in the google doc… KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Niels, What I said was, first of all we need an opening part to the use or otherwise of Ruggie Principle saying that the group has examined various sopurtce, among which was Ruggie Principle and concluded that not all those principles totally apply Greg Shatan: We have been clear that we should not try to implement all the Ruggie principles as is. Niels ten Oever: Making great progress. Awaiting response from ICANN legal re Applicable Law. Would encourage everyone who has concrete comments please email these to the list or include these directly in the Google doc. Adjourned. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:47 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: "ws2-hr(a)icann.org" <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 18 October Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #10 – 18 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/5xC4Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> 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 Notes 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc No updates for SOI, draft agenda adopted Niels - Short report sent to the list to meet the 21 Oct date for the Co-Chairs 1. Executive Summary The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup has documented the historical context of the discussions on ICANNs human rights bylaw, which together with the CCWG report (especially Annex 6 and 12) form it's scope of discussion, with a Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights Bylaw as intended output. The subgroup is currently preparing a Framework of Interpretation which in due time will be presented to the CCWG plenary for discussion. 2. Description of the Issue 2.1 Current State of Play The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup started of with providing an overview of the discussions and agreements as they were made during CCWG Workstream 1 [0]. Subsequently the Subgroup has analyzed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and their relevance and applicability for ICANN. While there was consensus that some principles were relevant for the development for a Framework of Interpretation (such as 13a and 15a), it was also recognized that the UNGPs have not been designed with an organization like ICANN in mind. Therefore a drafting team is currently iteratively designing a draft Framework of Interpretation which is being discussed in weekly calls. It is expected, that at this rate, the subgroup will be able to achieve the set milestones. 2.2 Supplemental Report See [0] 3 Recommendation 3.1 Requirements for Recommendation We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet. 3.2 Rationale for Recommendation We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet. [0] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Comments on draft text should be submitted to the list 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI a. within the scope of its Mission b. within the scope of other Core Values c. respecting d. internationally recognized human rights e. as required by applicable law Presentation and discussion of the work of the drafting team by team members. Greg Shatan walked the group through the document starting with the Mission, seems that the Mission section may not need any further interpretation at this time. Agree that Mission covers core values. It was noted that it may not be necessary to quote the bylaw. Discussing the general framework of the core values and how they work within the bylaws, in particular for human rights aspect. Requesting ICANN Legal opinion on relationship between core values. Noted the response from ICANN Legal on 20 Sept. on core values. With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed. Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments. The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other. Suggestion to remove the square brackets in the text as they are not needed. Discussion of how to move forward based on the discussion of the draft from the drafting team. Do have some parameters that the group is in agreement. Agree that the Ruggie Principals are a source to be used. In particular the notion of respectfulness Suggestion that the group add some background to the text to explain. No intention to create and automatic application of the Ruggie Principals, in particular application as to respect. 3. AOB Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 9.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> · NewdocumentFoIWG.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 18 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #10 – 18 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/5xC4Aw 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 Notes 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc No updates for SOI, draft agenda adopted Niels - Short report sent to the list to meet the 21 Oct date for the Co-Chairs 1. Executive Summary The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup has documented the historical context of the discussions on ICANNs human rights bylaw, which together with the CCWG report (especially Annex 6 and 12) form it's scope of discussion, with a Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights Bylaw as intended output. The subgroup is currently preparing a Framework of Interpretation which in due time will be presented to the CCWG plenary for discussion. 2. Description of the Issue 2.1 Current State of Play The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup started of with providing an overview of the discussions and agreements as they were made during CCWG Workstream 1 [0]. Subsequently the Subgroup has analyzed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and their relevance and applicability for ICANN. While there was consensus that some principles were relevant for the development for a Framework of Interpretation (such as 13a and 15a), it was also recognized that the UNGPs have not been designed with an organization like ICANN in mind. Therefore a drafting team is currently iteratively designing a draft Framework of Interpretation which is being discussed in weekly calls. It is expected, that at this rate, the subgroup will be able to achieve the set milestones. 2.2 Supplemental Report See [0] 3 Recommendation 3.1 Requirements for Recommendation We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet. 3.2 Rationale for Recommendation We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet. [0] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Comments on draft text should be submitted to the list 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI a. within the scope of its Mission b. within the scope of other Core Values c. respecting d. internationally recognized human rights e. as required by applicable law Presentation and discussion of the work of the drafting team by team members. Greg Shatan walked the group through the document starting with the Mission, seems that the Mission section may not need any further interpretation at this time. Agree that Mission covers core values. It was noted that it may not be necessary to quote the bylaw. Discussing the general framework of the core values and how they work within the bylaws, in particular for human rights aspect. Requesting ICANN Legal opinion on relationship between core values. Noted the response from ICANN Legal on 20 Sept. on core values. With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed. Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments. The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other. Suggestion to remove the square brackets in the text as they are not needed. Discussion of how to move forward based on the discussion of the draft from the drafting team. Do have some parameters that the group is in agreement. Agree that the Ruggie Principals are a source to be used. In particular the notion of respectfulness Suggestion that the group add some background to the text to explain. No intention to create and automatic application of the Ruggie Principals, in particular application as to respect. 3. AOB Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 9.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62394599/Presentation%20Me…> · NewdocumentFoIWG.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62394599/NewdocumentFoIWG.…>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #10_ 17 October 16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #10 - 17 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/wxK4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. 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> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 6 participants at start of call. 1. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome - Opening Remarks Sebastien Bachollet: Agenda accepted. Cheryl Langdon-Orr apologies. We have added a new observer. 2. Discussion of the questions Sebastien Bachollet: Note regarding new role of the Complaints Officer (CO). Asha Hemrajani: Asking for more details on how the new hire will interact with the Ombuds Office and when the CO will be hired. Herb Waye: spoke to Goran twice about this. He was concerned about complaints regarding staff performance. There is an overlap with the role of the Ombuds Office - looking forward to a partnership between both similar to the partnership of the Ombuds Office has with contractual enforcement. Asha Hemrajani: Agree positive development. However, there could be overlap with the Ombudsman Office but it will be important for this group to get more information on the new position for our work. Klaus Stoll: Unfortunate timing given the work of this group and the lack of consultation with the community. Would have been better to work with the recommendations of this group. There is serious concern by the community that this will further strengthen ICANN legal which is undesirable. Sebastien Bachollet: good comment KS. The question remains about the Ombuds Office vs staff. Also note that the new position could have been discussed with this group and the staff prior to any announcement. Personal opinion is that any such position for staff should be independent of staff. Additionally, we should coordinate with the Staff Accountability sub-group. Klaus Stoll: Can we as a group start a dialogue with Goran on that position. At least communicate our concerns? Asha Hemrajani: Klaus, as I had mentioned earlier, I have asked Goran to provide further clarifications. Klaus Stoll: It should get further then just us being told. It should be a dialogue. I appreciate what AH is saying, clarifications will not help. We should communicate with Goran that he should discuss with us before proceeding. Sebastien Bachollet: Propose we bring this to the attention of the full group on the plenary call. ACTION ITEM - Invite Goran to our next meeting to discuss this point. Asha Hemrajani: I think Herb (as staff) and I (as board liaison) can bring back these concerns to the Board and staff. Klaus Stoll: Thank You Asha Herb Waye: Ombuds Office would be for staff relevant to policy implementation issues. More HR related issues would be for the CO. Asha Hemrajani: Herb and I can bring this up to the Board but the first step is to get more information. Sebastien Bachollet: As a group we would prefer to have direct interaction with Goran on this topic. 3. Prep of the next WS2 plenary (Oct 19, 2016) Sebastien Bachollet: The Board Gov. Comm. is the unit to look at the work done by the Ombudsman. What will be the role of the BGC going forward? Would like to link this question to the independence of the Ombus Office - this in the context of the Empowered Community. Klaus Stoll: We have to transition from the current model to the Empowered Community and we need to have very clear roles. Herb Waye: Independence has never been an issue with the various components of the Board. It could possibly be better documented but it will not change the relationship. Klaus Stoll: Agree with HW, but find it useful to properly document these points. Asha Hemrajani: This is all a matter of documentation. Sebastien Bachollet: Personal POV - Need to be clear of why and how things are done and we need to see if we can improve independence. Additionally, what is the role of the Compensation Committee re budget of the Ombuds office (uncertain?). Should this be done outside of the Board? maybe a discussion for this group. This closes this topic for today. I have asked the full CCWG regarding how we will finance the review. Also would like to have staff help for the document. Herb Waye Ombuds: An external review would not need to be rewritten by staff 4. Plan of the document Sebastien Bachollet: (review of slide). I will be working on a new version in the next 48 hours so we can look at it prior to our next meeting. 5. Coordination with other DT Sebastien Bachollet: Have discussed with Transparency group. Should we have a joint meeting with them? Another group that is relevant is Staff Acct. Please think if we should hold common meetings with these other groups (Action item: Send a note to this group regarding this). Herb Waye: If we do have such meetings they should be arranged to ensure they are productive and do not bring more confusion. 6. Next meeting #11 - Oct 24, 2016 7. AOB (none) Sebastien Bachollet: Adjourned (with 6 participants).

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #9 - 13 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #9 – 13 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/fAi4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes: 1. Welcome - Opening Remarks 2. Review (brief) of last call #8 3. Discussion Topics a) Second Review and Discussion on Draft text of questions to be sent to SO/ACs - Review of the designated community members - noted that this has been captured in the Google doc according and lists groups according to the bylaws. The document is located at Our Google Doc is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTRZZJ9B3Q6BHP6AlDHmoiep8NeshNpomBNM4bB…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> - Raised some concerns over the questions drafted as they may be difficult to answer for some groups, as there is a need to understand the terminology i.e. what does it mean to participate. - Might be a need to consider to customize the questions based on the SO/AC. It may be a better solution to provide a prefix to the questions so that the group can respond as it applies to them. Customizing questions may make the responses hard to collate and if a questions does not apply, then the organization does not need to reply. there is also a need to have fee text questions too. It should be noted that each question should be interpreted in the context applicable to that AC/SO. - May need to revisit the use of the term designated community and explain what we mean when using that term. Might be a better approach to use a clear description from the bylaws as to the community and who they represent. - Need to also look at if each group is accountable to the global stakeholder community - Need to look at restated questions prepared by Giovanni and consider approach to take with the revisions b) Reviewing the paper provided by staff on SO/AC accountability - Discussion of the contents of the staff report, it was noted that the staff report does not go into a deep dive as to the SO/AC accountability documents and procedures that exist today. - can consider asking the SO.AC Chairs if their support staff cold provide each groups accountability documents Agreed to use Giovanni's version of the questions with revisions to be made based on today's discussion 4. AOB Next call scheduled for 20 October at 0500 UTC Documents Presented · WS2-ACSO_AccountabilityDRAFTcommunityQuestions4Comment.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62392444/WS2-ACSO_Accounta…> · SO_ACAccountabilityWS2StaffPaper28Sept2016.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62392444/SO_ACAccountabili…>

1 0

TR: Request to the Chairs of Chartering Organizations for Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

FYI, SSAC's approval the CCWG-Accountability budget. We now have confirmation from all Chartering Organizations, many thanks to all of you for your support. Best Mathieu -----Message d'origine----- De : Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Envoyé : jeudi 13 octobre 2016 16:56 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : James Bladel; Alan Greenberg; katrina(a)nic.lv; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; llee(a)equinix.com; Bernard Turcotte; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ACCT-Staff; Xavier J. Calvez; Alissa Cooper; Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr; oscar(a)lacnic.net Objet : Re: Request to the Chairs of Chartering Organizations for Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget All, SSAC hereby as I think the last chartering organisation approving this budget. Often we are quick, but this time for various reasons we where late. Thanks everyone (of specifically ICANN staff) that have helped pushing things over the doorstep. Patrik Fältström SSAC Chair On 23 Jun 2016, at 8:42, Mathieu Weill wrote: > Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations, > > As per it's Charter the Project Cost Support Team (PCST) has supported > the CCWG-Accountability in developing a draft budget for its > activities for > FY17 and has also developed a historical analysis of all the > transition costs to date (please see the charter of the PCST in the > attached document). > > The CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget was presented at its plenary > meeting of June 21st and approved for transmission to the Chartering > Organizations for validation as per the process agreed with the PCST > (see attached document). > > Upon validation by the Chartering Organizations these should forward > it to the Board for Approval. > > Please do not hesitate to contact us or the PCST should you have any > questions on the attached document. > > Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez > > CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs >

1 0