October 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Adobe Room Connection Issues
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Hello All - As many of you know, ICANN introduced new Adobe Connect (AC) rooms for the CCWG calls. Some of you may have experienced glitches with the AC Rooms’ accessibility, audio quality, connection, and delays in the chat pod. Our tech-team is working very closely with Adobe Connect to iron out these issues as soon as possible. In order to rapidly identify what constitutes an individual issue rather than a widespread one, please report any issues affecting quality of your conference call; be it delays in joining the meeting, difficulty hearing or being heard, or abnormal delays in the room. Prior to reporting however please follow the below troubleshooting steps: 1. Run the ICANN AC test to ensure you have all the latest add ins, it takes 10 – 15 seconds: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest…> 2. Try accessing the AC room via a different browser. Tech support recommends trying this order, from first to last: 1) Firefox 2) Chrome 3) Safari 4) IE 3. Check that you have no Ad Blockers, or other Blockers enabled (this can vary from browser to browser) Once this is done, if you are still having issues, please alert the Host of your Adobe Connect Room, or acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> , so that tech support may be made aware to fix the issue or escalate it to Adobe immediately. Be advised the Tech Team is working round the clock to resolve these issues, and will provide updates going forward if necessary. Our apologies for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience and cooperation. Kindest Regards, Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiatives Team ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> | acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup_ Meeting #2_ 07 October 16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity, Meeting #2- 07 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605537 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 1. Review questions - Discussion of topics: a) Definition of diversity in the ICANN context Discussed concerns and approaches, including a link to useful information to consider. A useful link https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity -b) Areas/aspects of diversity to focus on: Noted that the paper might be a place to start working, including the resources and references in the report. Noted that the AFNIC is also a very good starting point. Might consider asking Staff on providing additional information and data on Diversity. Need to identify areas and topics where they would like additional details. Might also look at new bylaws for diversity details as it provides a new way of looking at diversity and diversity within ICANN functional structures. Objective will be to use these thoughts to develop a strawman. ACTION ITEM: - Rapporteurs will develop Strawman based on discussion items raised for group review. - Develop additional diversity data request for Staff assistance Input and experiences can we learn from Review staff background paper 2. Plan for Hyderabad meeting for the subgroup Discussion of possible approach and what to report. Will keep in mind the need to have a topic identified by the 21 Oct date. 3 AOB Suggested that meeting times be rotated between 0500 UTC, 1300 UTC and 1900 UTC. 4. Next Meeting: sending doodle poll ________________________________

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #7 - 10 October 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #7– 10 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mxC4Aw 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 Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 16 participants at start of call. 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: No one on phone only. No changes to SOIs. 2. Discussion of Approach: Our work so far, and a way forward (see email) a. Changing ICANN's headquarters or incorporation jurisdiction i. Will not be investigated at this time ii. Not off the table -- If an issue is identified and we can’t find a less drastic solution, will revisit this point, including concerns raised, in the context of the identified issue. Greg Shatan: Is this proposal ok? No comments. Assume no objections. b. Confirm and Assessing Gap Analysis i. Discussion has largely been about scope and not about confirmation and assessment ii. Put to the side and revisit after work on substantive issue that is clearly “in scope” Greg Shatan: Any issues with the proposal? No comments. Assume no objections. c. We will continue discussion of Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document Greg Shatan: No comments. Assume to objections. d. We will begin discussion of the “In Scope” Issue: 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 Greg Shatan: No comments. Assume to objections. Overall comments? David McAuley: Support the proposal overall and would propose doing D initially vs C. Greg Shatan: I think we need to spend a little time on C so we all have a common understanding of what we mean by jurisdiction. It is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the layers. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Greg, sounds fine. Milton Mueller: Support GS approach. Uncertain why put aside the gap analysis? Greg Shatan: there has been a diversity views on this and no consensus by this group. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Greg, I think you have proposed to put aside GAP analysis, why? I have no problem if we start with layers and then come back to GAP Alaysis - can you assure that we will not take jurisdiction off the table 3. Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction (Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document) Greg Shatan: Jurisdiction of Incorporation definition. No comments. Kavouss Arasteh 2: This document is written in a confusing manner perhaps to make it difficult to understand. It has been copied from the text of the WS1 which was also vague. Greg Shatan: Jurisdiction of Headquarters proposed definition. No issues Kavouss Arasteh 2: Grec, I have no problem for these cases , pls advise if there is an issue outside these places what would happened? the description of the multilayer as copied from the text of WS1 is vague ,unclear and requires streamlining - again and again, we should not just discuss the periphery of the case but the center of the issue Greg Shatan: Places of physical presence. David McAuley: Is ICANN incorporated in some of these other places of presence? Maybe ICANN legal can help. Greg Shatan: Ok to ask ICANN Legal - but to my understanding a company can only be incorporated once and in one place. You may have to register with local authorities for doing business. Kavouss Arasteh 2: 1. review the description as contained in WS1 and make it clear , understandable Samantha Eisner: ICANN is not incorporated anywhere else. It is a registered foreign office or branch office equivalent in all other places. Greg Shatan: Jurisdiction for Interpretation of contracts (choice of law or governing law). Tijani Ben Jemaa: The real issue is the choice of the judge. As to Jorge's comment - who has the choice of applicable law? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the parties may in agreements determine the applicable law, as well as about the venue, provider etc of the dispute resolution. Greg Shatan: Doing that at the time of a dispute is always an issue. Always best to do ahead of time. Milton Mueller: you are saying that the Registry Agreement does not provide parties with choice of law? Jeff Neuman: correct @milton Milton Mueller: Same for RAA Jeff Neuman: same with Registrar Accreditation Agreement Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): in the base registry agreement there are some provisions for specific cases where commitments conflict with applicable national law... Milton Mueller: Yes, Jorge that's what I thought Jeff Neuman: BUT, the venue is always in LA Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): there are some specific rules for governmental entities and IGOs I think Jeff Neuman: For the Registrars it uses the American Arbitration Assocation Greg Shatan: Jurisdiction of Litigation David McAuley: WRT venue - we should not confuse with IRP which is essentially meant to be venue less. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): My comments in the Google Doc are pointers of issues that could be improved (i.e. they are on the normative level) - but it's true that first we need a good factual description of the current situation David McAuley (RySG): ok - will put the thought in google doc. Milton Mueller: NTIA requirements are no longer required and this should be removed. Greg Shatan: Think this is still valid. Samantha Eisner: Requirements derived from NTIA's criteria are included in the WS2 Bylaw in Article 27 Avri Doria: I believe the NTIA requirements remain in effect for WS2. Milton Mueller: How can they? Avri Doria: as Sam says they are part of the transition bylaws. after WS2, then it is arguable. Milton Mueller: NTIA transition requirements are just that: transition requirements. Jeff Neuman: So lets dismiss the work "NTIA" and substitute Article 27 of the Bylaws Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: Although I fully support the requirements set out for the transition, I agree with Milton here. Number 7 is not a proper layer. Greg Shatan: good points will clean up the document. Encourage everyone to put their comments in the Google doc. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Greg - let us know when doc is cleaned up and we can go back in Tijani Ben Jemaa: Agree with MM - no need for this (7) layer here. Milton Mueller: Support deleting it and Article is not really relevant. David McAuley (RySG): I think Jeff's idea makes sense - call it art. 27 Greg Shatan: Invite everyone to look at Article 27 C. This applies to all sub-groups. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with David and Jeff makes sense for now. Milton Mueller: we can't change anything major "tomorrow" (vs NTIA requirements) Tatiana Tropina: I think they are not "requirements" anymore but rather principles we want to follow? Greg Shatan: encourage everyone to think about the next piece of work - item 4 of the agenda. Adjourned. Documents Presented · MultipleLayersofJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62394523/MultipleLayersofJ…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 9 | 11 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #9 – 11 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/cwi4Aw 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: · Staff to contact ICANN legal regarding their interpretation of applicable law and their comments on the sub-group’s proposed definition. · Staff to post transcript of last call of sub-group as soon as possible. Notes Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Administrivia, Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Discussion on Working Methods · Niels ten Oever: Google Document is messy but is a testament to the work going on. · Tatiana Tropina: Leave the Google doc as a main drafting tool and then hold a Skype (or other) call and take notes and then go back to the document. · Greg Shatan: Google doc is being stretched but still think it is a good tool for us. Maybe just need to manage our inputs better using the various functions available. Everyone should work in Suggestion mode. · Tatiana Tropina: Wiki no please not for this task. · Rudi Daniel: yes, so far Google docs works as well as a tool. · Tijamni Ben Jemaa: Google docs is not usable everywhere in the world. Experience using the Wiki was better (audio cutting out). · Tatiana Tropina: (sorry for being so direct, I just can't use wiki for this type of drafting). · Niels ten Oever: Have checked with ICANN staff and there are currently no additional tools available for this in the Wiki at this time. · Kavous Arasteh: Not in support of Google docs. Difficult to use. Many of the comments in the Google doc are not useful. · Stefania Milan: It seems to me that Greg's proposal to accept minor editorial changes, and especially to create historical versions, is very logical and easy to implement · Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I support the wiki as archive and connections to various more collaborative tools though · Avri Doria: any confusion in the drive doc is due to confusion in the group, not a tool problem. yes, wiki is good storage and archival tool. 3. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law · David McAuley: I have provided my input on Applicable Law and then have provided a boiled down version. Applicable Law is discernable if there is a question on the floor but not if there is not. · Matthew Shears: David - your suggestions were very helpful · Nigel Roberts: I disagree with that definition. The term would be construed strictly by any court interpreting the by law. · Kavous Arasteh: Recommend people should comment on the written document in writing on the list. · Nigel Roberts: Human rights law only applies to public actors UNLESS we voluntarily adopt particular instruments. · Tatiana Tropina: Nigel it can be also some other laws, not only HR + HR is for the states, but it gets translated to the laws and regulations, I can come up with many examples how it is translated in the national law and binds any actors. · Nigel Roberts: There is no applicable HR law to ICANN unless we voluntary adopt parts of things like Ruggie. · Rudi Daniel: This definition makes more sense IMO.....Applicable law is a specific concept of private international law and refers to the national law that governs a given question of law in an international context. A court hearing an action does not necessarily apply its national law to settle the dispute. · Greg Shatan: There are laws that apply to entities and individuals via the state wrt HR. · Nigel Roberts: Human rights law only applies to public actors UNLESS we voluntarily adopt particular instruments. · Tatiana Tropina: There is no applicable HR law, but there many laws that contain the elements related to HR. Criminal prohibition on slavery is one of the obvious examples. · David McAuley (RySG): I stand by my thoughts in my longer and shorter emails - I also think HR principles work their way into laws that apply to ICANN and I think the twice reference in the bylaw makes this important. · Nigel Roberts: What applicable law applies to ICANN in the matter of free expression? The First Amendment doesn't · Matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana, Greg and David · Tatiana Tropina: Nigel, you want ICANN to create this law on it's own? Or create its own rules on FOE that it will be enforcing? It directly contradicts the bylaw · Niels ten Oever 2: @greg - that seems out of scope, or at least outside of our capacity. · Jorge Cancio: thanks to DM. This is a good basis but have some concerns wrt NR has raised. Would be good to compare our definition vs the definition of ICANN legal. · David McAuley (RySG): putting bylaw language aside for a moment, what would apply? Hard to ask as the bylaws language is what it is. · Nigel Roberts: I wish people would actually read the remarks of the learned judge in .XXX v ICANN IRP. · Tatiana Tropina: I lowered my hand, because Greg said everything I wanted to say. The onlt thing I would still like to reiterate is my thanks to David. This definition suggested by him reflects the scope of the term and the changing nature of laws and regulations. · Nigel Roberts: Nothing applies by default. Agree that the core value is very important · David McAuley (RySG): I think ICANN's commitment to respect HR is significant · Avri Doria: I thought the commitment was meant to be empty from the beginning. certainly was always an empty phrase. · Greg Shatan: Applicable law is not that malleable and elusive. · Chris LaHatte: if nothing applies by default then we reach consensus on what we want, that seems logic · Nigel Roberts: It BECOMES applicable when ICANN voluntarily agrees to it. · Tatiana Tropina: I disagree · Greg Shatan: That's not how applicable law works. · Nigel Roberts: Anything else is domestic black letter law. · Greg Shatan: Or the law generally. Applicable law is the law that ICANN is subject to. · Nigel Roberts: Exactly, Greg. California law, for example. · Erich Schweighofer: Applicable law is a reality, different according to the jurisdiction. Human rights are determined by the applicable law that should comply with the international human rights obligations of the respective jurisdiction. · Nigel Roberts: Turkish law for example. · John Laprise: agreed · David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Niels - think it would be good to hear from ICANN legal on this · Tatiana Tropina: Agree about ICANN legal · Greg Shatan: Turkish law only applies in limited circumstances. I would assume only to actions taken in Turkey. · Nigel Roberts: Probably. · Matthew Shears: good then we are all on the same page · Nigel Roberts: Point I was making is that many jurisdictions' law is applicable law where ICANN's actions have an effect in that jurisdiction. I could just as easily have said Belgian law, or DC law - all places where ICANN has offices and staff · Kavous Arasteh: Voluntary or mandatory is the key - · Niels ten Oever: We should move this to the list. Please read and comment. 4. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI · Niels ten Oever: Let us go through this part by part and let us not do any wordsmithing. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 Avri - there is however a principle in law (at least in continental Europe) that a provision has to be construed so as to give it a purpose, a meaning... · Nigel Roberts: Jorge - i totally agree - but don't expect ICANN to take a teleological view · Greg Shatan: This is a draft document at this point. Taking Ruggie as is, is not what should be done. · Avri doria: Ruggie should be seen and an integral piece, either we take all of it or walk away from it. · Matthew shears: I think we can find guidance in Ruggie at this stage. · Tatiana Tropina: I agree with Avri in general - they are integral piece and we shall use them as inspiration, but they are so much about implementation that it's impossible to use them as a piece · Matthew Shears: agree - the implementation is far beyond our mandate · David McAuley (RySG): Agree w Tatiana · Avri Doria: I am becoming convinced that it is an empty mandate. · Nigel Roberts: Can I propose, please, that we reiew secetion 58 of ICM Registry v ICANN please?? This deals with applicable international law. " ICANN voluntarily subjected itself to these general principles in its Articles of Incorporation, something that both California law permits and that is typical in international arbitrations, especially when public goods are at stake. " · Mathew Shears: Our mandate is to take this back what is required. The problem with Ruggie is that is goes into implementation which is beyond our mandate but we can be inspired by it. I don't think we have hashed out the various parts to go through it in detail · Niels ten Oever 2: @TT - Not in detail, high level, to see where the thinking is going. And so we can profit from the ideas from people out side of the drafting team. · Lee Hibbard: have been following the last calls closely. Ruggie is a starting point for ICANN but should not be the only one. Council of Europe (where I work) will release shortly a document about the HR implications of many TLDs. We need to mindful of HR principles but we should not go into implementation. · Jorge Cancio: I agree with MS - Ruggie is good for guidance but they are not the right level vs WS1 recommendations. The drafters have been working intensively for the last 3 or 4 days. There is much common ground on general topics if not on specific wording. We all agree that the mission is a core boundary……. · Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge, these are already known and we need not to repeat them again · Brett Schaefer: Sorry, but we seem to be going in circles. Aside for applicable law, which has been clarified to some extent, this conversation is just reiterating what we discussed in the last few calls. We still do not seem any closer to defining respect for human rights, etc. · Avri Doria: I do not see any room for proposals as long as we are stuck with existing law. we are already covered by that and it adds nothing. · Brett Schaefer: Matthew and Tatiana, sorry, I don't see the progress. The same fundamental disagreements remain unresolved. · Tatiana Tropina: I didn't expect them to be resolved in one week. · Erich Schweighofer: There is applicable law and international human rights law (HRC, ECtHR etc.). ICANN has to position itself in this network. Neutral, supportive (Ruggie) or laissez-faire (States). · Tatiana Tropina: But I appreciate your feedback :) we will try harder :) · Nigel Roberts: Please refer ICM Registry v ICANN · Matthew Shears: Brett feel free to make suggestions · Avri Doria: WS1 did not work out because people want the fig leaf of HR, without any commitment to HR. that is now quite obvious. · Niels ten Oever: Staff to ask ICANN legal for their interpretation of applicable law and comment on our draft one. Work on the drafting team should continue and new members are welcome to join. · Brett Schaefer: I have, they have been rejected. Part of the disagreements I mentioned. We need to narrow our focus to rights likely to be related to ICANN's work and clarify what ICANN's responsibilities are. But that would be "cherry picking". · Niels ten Oever 2: @Brett - we have been having a list of documents for quite a while. · Greg Shatan: We should not be cherry picking. Unfortunate the transcript of the last meeting has not been posted on the Wiki. Agree with BS. Until we get past simply applying Ruggie completely we will never progress. · Avri Doria: I find the blockage to existing law unhelpful. existing law adds NOTHING new. · John Laprise: +1 Avri · Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Avri · Chris LaHatte: Ruggie etc are a guide so we choose what we want · Greg Shatan: Ruggie cannot be the only guidance. It's like going to a city and told there is only one guidebook. · Niels ten Oever: We have reached the end of the call. Looking forward to continuing the discussion online. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #6 - 5 October 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #6– 5 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RQi4Aw 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 (including relevant parts of chat): 20 participants at the start of the meeting. 1. Welcome · Greg Shatan: No changes. 2. Scope of our Work · Greg Shatan: I believe we have not yet settled the scope of our work. We can look at the EFFECTS of the place of incorporation. · jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): Is there any new proposal on the scope of our work? We still have Annex 12 approved by the community in Marrakech - that should be our basis... · David McAuley: Annex 12, paragraph 30 seems pretty clear: At this point WS2’s focus should be on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues – in that effort we should include confirming and assessing not the “gap” but the “gap analysis” –meaning, IMO, the provisions we have put in place for dispute resolutions – will they/do they work? · Jean-Jacques Subrenat: For item 3 on our agenda, I will refer to a document of which I was a co-author, "Improving Institutional Confidence of ICANN", see archive.icann.org/en/psc/iic/improving-confidence-ne.pdf<http://archive.icann.org/en/psc/iic/improving-confidence-ne.pdf> · jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the discussion on scope gets us into a circle... until we do not tackle the issues potentially under the scope agreed in Marrakech we won't see whether they are or not off-limits · Tatiana Tropina: It feels quite good - you miss the couple of calls due to the tight travel schedule, and here we go - moving headquarters, not moving headquarters. My opinion stays the same - this is comletely out of scope. · Tatiana Tropina: Jorge, a rare case when I agree with you :D · David McAuley: Our job is to look at alternatives vs dispute resolution period. · Jean-Jacques Subrenat: 1) In "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008-09, I as one of the co-authors had proposed the notion of "additional jurisdiction", rather than "alternative jurisdiction". This was important: ICANN Headquarters would not change, but jurisdiction could be added for non-contract aspects. · Phil Corwin: vs arguing if it is in scope - does it make any sense discussing this possibility given there are no gaps, we have spent much money and time on making this under California law. Looking at alternates would be a significant undertaking which would long expensive and arduous. Agree with DM vs our scope. I agree with one of the previous speakers (David?) that we could agree to distinguish 2 things, contract-related items (US/California jurisdiction) and other items (conflict resolution, etc). · Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree with David and Phil here · Greg Shatan: PC and DM seem like logical conclusions. Worth noting that the gNSO council has passed a condition on the CCWG budget that it could not support work in the CCWG wrt moving ICANN's location of incorporation. · Jorge Cancio: I wish to reiterate relative to scope - we have a scope from WS1 recommendation 12 - we should live with the AMBIGUITY for the moment. It would be more efficient to go to specific discussions and then we will see if there are issues that are out of scope. To have this scope beforehand is putting the cart before the horse. · Greg Shatan: PC's remarks have moved us past scope to the realism of moving ICANN. What are your thoughts on this JC. · Jorge Cancio: This is scope. (car analogy). · Greg Shatan: since the remit of this group is 9 months it would seem unrealistic to think we would change the engine on the car in that time. (reads JJS comments from chat because of audio issues). · Pedro da Silva: My comment is in line with JC - at this point of time this does not make sense and it is probable that when we complete our analysis of issues we will have the same conclusion but it will be stronger -so we should not deal with this at this point. · Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Denmark is of the view that it is not within our scope to recommend moving ICANN’s Place of Incorporation or Headquarters Location from California. But if anybody can point to potential problems, we might look into means to address such problems without changing ICANN’s place of incorporation. · David McAuley: As a member of IRP there are issues that are related to IRP and touch on Jurisdiction. · jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @David: thanks, hope that we keep efforts in parallel well coordinated... · Greg Shatan: straw vote for this or not. · Tijani Ben Jemaa: uncomfortable with this. · jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): For the reasons given I step away from such a straw poll · Greg Shatan: many of our participants are arguing for this which is why I am bringing this up. Many green ticks no objections. · Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I agree that "moving the headquarters out of California" is not an urgent matter. We should examine what ADDITIONAL jurisdictions could achieve, for specific purposes. · Greg Shatan: We have now covered points 2 and 3 in the agenda. Let us move to item 5. 3. Is the Possibility of Moving ICANN’s Place of Incorporation or Headquarters Location from California in Scope? · (see previous point) 4. Confirming and Assessing the Gap Analysis a. “Gap” analyzed in Work Stream 1 b. Result of Gap Analysis in Work Stream 1 c. How should we confirm the WorkStream 1 Gap Analysis? · · (Skipped 5. Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction · Greg Shatan: Presentation of the slide on Multiple Layers. · Jean-jacques Subrenat: (continuing issues) Multiple layers is interesting but what are the purposes of having additional jurisdictions (additional vs alternate). Second remark (dropped audio), · Greg Shatan: Why are we not using Adobe audio JJS - most use it for visual but audio is on phone because of quality issues. Any comments on the slide? · Pedro da Silva: This is a good start. and how we should start our work. Would like a week to comment on this to see if we need to add to this. After that we could look at each of these as to how they affect the work of ICANN. · Phil Corwin: There is a difference between types of contracts - registries and registrars should probably be under US law just for uniformity. Other parties such as real estate in other countries is another issue. · Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I suggest we use "additional jurisdictions" to avoid confusion about wanting to change headquarters or not. I was also saying it would be useful to examine several tasks where an additional jurisdiction would be useful, e.g. hiring people outside the US (employment, insurance, taxes). · Greg Shatan: A third category could be for the choice of law for enforcing the decisions of the Empowered Community. Encourage everyone to read JC's email. Contracts with contracted parties are silent on choice of law or venue - we should confirm this. Let us look and comment on the slide in Google doc for comments. Next meeting 1900UTC Monday. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 8 | 4 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #8 – 4 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwW4Aw 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: 18 participants in Adobe room at start of call. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever: Markus phone only. Changes to SOIs? (none). Changes to agenda? Tatiana Tropina: Is there a summary of previous discussion? Niels ten Oever: report of the last meeting. Brett Schaefer: Again we seem to be starting from the assumption that the RUggie Principles are our base document and we are trimming from them. Why? Tatiana Tropina: Brett, not. At least this is NOT my assumption. Markus ..: Should we take a step back? There are parallels with FIFA. Having Ruggie attend a meeting could be good. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good question Brett Tatiana Tropina: But there is a divergence in the views of this group. I will fight against the assumption that Ruggie is our base document Brett Schaefer: I also remain concern that the draft FoI seems to assume that ICANN can voluntarily adopt HR obligations even though that seems in opposition to the Core Value text. Niels ten Oever: explanation of how the document was arrived at - it is a preliminary document that was meant as a scratch pad. I may of share this prematurely. It does not represent any kind of consensus. I have been discussing our project with John Ruggie but he is a very busy man and cannot attend our call. David McAuley: My recommendation is that the FOI it should be a separate document so everyone can see our progress. Niels ten Oever: agree with that and will work on creating a clean document after this call. Kavous Arasteh: Simple to criticize but hard to do. Why do we always come back to applicable law - Tatiana Tropina: I won't also assume that the content of the FoI document is actually FoI. It's good structure-wise but content-wise it makes the assumptions that I will fight against. Greg Shatan: Brett, whether or not ICANN can adopt voluntary obligations is beyond the scope of interpreting the Bylaw. Brett Schaefer: @Greg, if so, then teh FoI is out of scope. Tatiana Tropina: Niels, but this is not reflecting the discussions we had! Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree wtih Greg Shatan: Agree with Tatiana, any FoI should build on our discussions. This doesn't Greg Shatan: Brett, this is very consistent with my concern. Tatiana Tropina: Greg, the document is good structure wise though. So I don't want to look like I am trushing the work of others. Tatiana Tropina: David, I agreed with you already in the comments in the doc. This will solve the problem. Tatiana Tropina: thanks for the suggestion. David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Niels Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Good point David perhaps just start with a Outline frame for the FOI discussions to come Tatiana Tropina: because the outline is good. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes Tatiana the skeleton / structure is fine matthew shears: yes, use outline but leave Ruggie for later David McAuley (RySG): I am one of those who think "applicable law" is an important part of the bylaw we are interpreting matthew shears: an entity respects human rights through complying with applicable law Tatiana Tropina: David, yes. David McAuley (RySG): One critical question we should ask about all undertakings suggested in this document is this: Are they “required by applicable law?” If not, then we should recall the following words that are a part of Bylaw Article 1.2(b)(viii): “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN … beyond obligations found in applicable law.” Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed David David McAuley (RySG): That is why I believe any incorporation of any Ruggie Principle must be subject to an overarching statement that its impact will be subordinate to the “required by applicable law” filter. matthew shears: david: an entity respects human rights through complying with applicable law David McAuley (RySG): I appreciate Niels effort to get Prof Ruggie to come to a call Greg Shatan: David, I think that filter would eliminate much of the Ruggie Principles in the context of ICANN. Tatiana Tropina: Non-binding can still open the door for claims and court cases once ICANN commits to them Tatiana Tropina: Greg, +1 David McAuley (RySG): I tend to agree @Greg Jorge Cancio: Thanks to Niels for the document which will help our work. Ruggie principles are not binding for business entities but they are a benchmark internationally - We should go into this discussion with an open mind. Would be interesting to hear what mr. Ruggie explains what is behind those principles. We have to mindful that this is a core value. Niels ten Oever: I have reached out to the UN working group but have not heard back. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think NIels has already acknowledged the edits were premature. Thank you Niels for recognizing this. Greg Shatan: We need to concentrate more on what the Bylaws say vs analyzing Ruggie principles. The document seems to assume a particular point of view which is not consensus of this group. All points of view have to be represented in this document - possibly using more columns? Applicable law is a very important limitation. Agree with JC that we need an open mind which means we do not know if Ruggie principles are usable or not. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we could have a second "descriptive" column and a third column with our different analysis of the facts Niels ten Oever: If my draft is only causing people to participate then this is good. Re Applicable law - the only suggestion we have on this is from PM regarding looking at state and county laws that are applicable. How could we address this? David McAuley: Applicable law is an actionable term as is and does not need to be analyzed or defined. ACTION ITEM will send his thoughts on Applicable Law to the list for the group. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): on "applicable law": why don't we start with an interpretation from ICANN legal? what it means to them? Greg Shatan: I think this is our job, not Jurisdiction. We can Greg Shatan: not hand it off. Erich Schweighofer: Applicable law changes, not the term. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with David... jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): on "applicable law": why don't we start with an interpretation from ICANN legal? what it means to them? David McAuley (RySG): I will take a stab at it, Jorge, but if ICANN legal would do that then in my view that would be preferable Niels ten Oever: will now proceed with agenda. 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding Principles 19, 17, 18 Niels ten Oever: Due diligence and principle 19 - thoughts? Jorge Cancio: I would leave that at this point - this is operational parts of the principles and is about implementation and not interpretation. Tatiana Tropina: We had not consensus on what due diligence actually means. Effective Integration seems to go into enforcement - at best this is controversial. Kavous Arasteh: There is no due diligence here - this looks good - the chapeau part seems to apply quite well. Niels ten Oever: the section containing this principles is labelled Due Diligence in the Ruggie principles. Greg Shatan: Principle 19 is all about implementation and beyond the scope of this group. Our job is to interpret the Bylaws. Tatiana Tropina: I just want to say that this principle has to be read together with others. It's not a standing alone principle. David McAuley (RySG): Mitigate would be acceptable as long as required by applicable law Tatiana Tropina: And if Ruggie require a broad impact assessment ... this is a broad thing. Tatiana Tropina: David, yes, as well as protect and enforce matthew shears: @ David - even then it could be outside the scope of the bylaw Tatiana Tropina: And yes, it is the issue of implementation Niels Ten Oever: GS is mitigation not part of what we are doing? Greg Shatan: corect. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Any time and evry time we discuss an issue somebody says the issue is of implementation nature. Kavouss Arasteh 2: How we could draw a line between policy principles and implementation principles. Greg Shatan: anytime we are writing what people should be doing wrt HR then we have probably strayed over the line. Jorge Cancio: I agree with what GS has said. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I note that ICANN has not yet made policy has to HR. This is a high level By-Law. Policy will be made in accordance with the existing ICANN processes - including Policy Development. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I am in line with your thinking Greg / Jorge Greg Shatan: If we are talking about what ICANN is free to do, and not what it Greg Shatan: is committed to do we are no longer interpreting a bylaw. matthew shears: could we move on to the other princples in the agenda so that we move on from Ruggie for the next call? Kavous Arasteh: do we need to discuss Ruggie or not? we need to resolve this. Jorge Cancio: On principle 17 seems to be more on implementation as it explains what 15B means. David McAuley: I would align with GS on principle 17. Ruggie are drafted to apply to all businesses while we are approaching this from the POV of ICANN which is a very specific type of business. Niels ten Oever: We are making progress and there is light at the end of the tunnel. Kavous Arasteh: when I look at Ruggie are all based on Assessing, evaluating and mitigating, prevention etc....maybe we only need one or two things from this. Anne Aikman-Scalese: ICANN will be undertaking policy-making activities with reference to the FOI-HR. Implementation will occur after policy is adopted - in accordance with existing ICANN processes. Agree that human rights impact assessment is implementation. Not sure as to whether conducting due diligence is policy or implementation. It is quite certain that if it affects registry contract obligations, it is policy. Greg Shatan: I think we are being sloppy in using the term "policy" as if it is interchangeable with interpretation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes I thought that was what we are doing Niels matthew shears: I a way Niels this has been a useful exercise for me because at the outset it was unclear to me whether Ruggie was in scope and suitable - but now having gone through this I am convinced that they are largely not, and certainly not as a starting point for our limited work on the FoI Brett Schaefer: +1 Matthew Niels ten Oever: Principle 18 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Niels ten Oever: I think our opinions our converging indeed Tatiana Tropina: Yes, Matt. Having gone through them I am not convinced to change my position that Ruggie shall be out unless we decide something is in Anne Aikman-Scalese: As previously expressed, I favor some version of Principle 18 being added to the FOI- HR. I believe this is consistent with current ICANN processes. Brett Schaefer: Yes, consensus seems to be that Ruggie is not a sound basis for the FoI. We should reconsider our approach. Greg Shatan: anything that starts with IN ORDER TO is implementation and outside our scope. 3 phases, interpreting the Byalws, implementing the bylaw through policy dev. and then development. Niels ten Oever: I think that is not what people said Brett, parts of Ruggie are useful, not wholly applicable. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 Niels Brett Schaefer: Really, I thought people supported Matthew who said: I a way Niels this has been a useful exercise for me because at the outset it was unclear to me whether Ruggie was in scope and suitable - but now having gone through this I am convinced that they are largely not, and certainly not as a starting point for our limited work on the FoI. Niels ten Oever: who will take a stab at the next version of the document? GS, TT, MS, JC. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #8 - 6 October
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #8 – 6 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/gQW4Aw 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 Action Item: ACTION ITEM: Rapporteurs to update the Google Doc so the Participants can continue to make comments on the draft questions so they can be review at the next session of the group. Notes 1. Review (brief) of last call #7 held on Sept 22nd and any Action Items Business Arising: ACTION ITEM- (prior call) Group to propose and place draft questions in Google Docs/wiki page for the group to review at next meeting Discussion of the draft questions contained in the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xigRIH7gE8NXEf6I0asyM6rUbGmbzHFcy0RGUZA… Review of the comments that have been submitted to date, will accept the grammar corrections, will focus on substantive comments. Request that members consider adding additional comments. Review of specific comments that were added to the draft questions: Rosalia Morales As a first question I would ask the Chair to specify their respective designated community¨ their SO/AC serves to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Giovanni Seppia -What are the published policies and procedures by which your SO/AC is accountable to the designated community that you serve, including include procedures to encourage participation by that designated community, and transparency about your SO/AC deliberations, decisions, eligibility, and elections? Please include link where they can be consulted - Were these policies and procedures updated over the past decade? If so, could you clarify if they were updated to respond to specific community requests/concerns? - Do your SO/AC have mechanisms by which your members can challenge or appeal decisions and elections? Please include link where they can be consulted. - Do your SO/AC maintain unwritten policies that are relevant to this exercise? If so, please describe as specifically as you are able. To the extent that there are multiple stakeholder groups or constituencies in your SO/AC, please forward this request accordingly. Greg Shatan - Does this refer to the actual members of a given SO/AC/SG/C/RALO or to the global community? Shouldn't this be differentiated? Being accountable to membership is not the same thing as being accountable to, e.g., all Internet end users or all ISPs. - To the extent that there are multiple stakeholder groups or constituencies in your SO/AC, please forward this request accordingly. It's not clear from this question whether the individual stakeholder groups and constituencies are expected to answer this question with regard to (a) the SO or AC as a whole, (b) the particular stakeholder group or constituency, or (c) other stakeholder groups and constituencies within that SO, or more than one of the above. This needs to be clear before this goes out. - More fundamentally, it's not clear to me that individual SG/C/RALO etc. accountability falls into the remit of this Subgroup. ACTION ITEM: Rapporteurs to update the Google Doc so the Participants can continue to make comments on the draft questions so they can be review at the next session of the group. 2 Discussion Topic Review and Discussion on Draft text of questions for current version of comments at meeting time. Discussion of Update and progress reporting for Hyderabad see Standard Form of Reporting <slide attached> and tracking document / report... What can we share with CCWG at Hyderabad Meeting? - Discussion of presenting a progress report in Hyderabad CCWG meeting.and the report template. Proposal for reporting - proposal to develop two tracks While waiting for responses to Questions, start track on IRP reporting. Suggestion to go through precious reports and update questions that had been identified for the report and update the details that the group has discussed and has responses for the report. Will start a fresh PowerPoint to capture the groups work and progress on its topic. Also need to consider specific questions that the Plenary should consider in the afternoon of the meeting in Hyderabad for inclusion in the report. 3. AOB - No other business Noted: that the next meeting will focus on the staff paper.

1 0

TR: Request to the Chairs of Chartering Organizations for Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

Dear Colleagues, FYI, below is the confirmation from ALAC regarding the approval of the budget and associated process. Best Thomas, Leon & Mathieu -----Message d'origine----- De : Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Envoyé : lundi 10 octobre 2016 06:23 À : Mathieu Weill; 'James Bladel' Cc : 'Bernard Turcotte'; 'Thomas Rickert'; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'Xavier J. Calvez' Objet : Re: Request to the Chairs of Chartering Organizations for Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget The ALAC has formally approved the budget and process described in the document. The ALAC receive notice of the comparable GNSO Motion too late to formally consider it, but after a straw poll of the ALAC, I note that the ALAC believes that the conditions expressed in the GNSO Motion Resolved Clauses 1-4 are implicit in the proposal being considered, but to the extent that they may not be, we do support those conditions. Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee At 23/06/2016 02:42 AM, 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

[Ws2-staff_acct] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #6_ 05 October 2016
by Yvette Guigneaux Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup, Meeting #6 - 05 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RQi4Aw 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> ________________________________ WS2 - Jursidiction Subgroup Meeting #6 | Wednesday, 05 October 16| 13:00 UTC Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 20 participants at the start of the meeting. 1. Welcome * Greg Shatan: No changes. 2. Scope of our Work * Greg Shatan: I believe we have not yet settled the scope of our work. We can look at the EFFECTS of the place of incorporation. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Is there any new proposal on the scope of our work? We still have Annex 12 approved by the community in Marrakech - that should be our basis... * David McAuley: Annex 12, paragraph 30 seems pretty clear: At this point WS2's focus should be on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues - in that effort we should include confirming and assessing not the "gap" but the "gap analysis" -meaning, IMO, the provisions we have put in place for dispute resolutions - will they/do they work? * Jean-Jacques Subrenat: For item 3 on our agenda, I will refer to a document of which I was a co-author, "Improving Institutional Confidence of ICANN", see archive.icann.org/en/psc/iic/improving-confidence-ne.pdf * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the discussion on scope gets us into a circle... until we do not tackle the issues potentially under the scope agreed in Marrakech we won't see whether they are or not off-limits * Tatiana Tropina: It feels quite good - you miss the couple of calls due to the tight travel schedule, and here we go - moving headquarters, not moving headquarters. My opinion stays the same - this is completely out of scope. * Tatiana Tropina: Jorge, a rare case when I agree with you :D * David McAuley: Our job is to look at alternatives vs dispute resolution period. * Jean-Jacques Subrenat: 1) In "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008-09, I as one of the co-authors had proposed the notion of "additional jurisdiction", rather than "alternative jurisdiction". This was important: ICANN Headquarters would not change, but jurisdiction could be added for non-contract aspects. * Phil Corwin: vs arguing if it is in scope - does it make any sense discussing this possibility given there are no gaps, we have spent much money and time on making this under California law. Looking at alternates would be a significant undertaking which would long expensive and arduous. Agree with DM vs our scope. I agree with one of the previous speakers (David?) that we could agree to distinguish 2 things, contract-related items (US/California jurisdiction) and other items (conflict resolution, etc). * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree with David and Phil here * Greg Shatan: PC and DM seem like logical conclusions. Worth noting that the gNSO council has passed a condition on the CCWG budget that it could not support work in the CCWG wrt moving ICANN's location of incorporation. * Jorge Cancio: I wish to reiterate relative to scope - we have a scope from WS1 recommendation 12 - we should live with the AMBIGUITY for the moment. It would be more efficient to go to specific discussions and then we will see if there are issues that are out of scope. To have this scope beforehand is putting the cart before the horse. * Greg Shatan: PC's remarks have moved us past scope to the realism of moving ICANN. What are your thoughts on this JC. * Jorge Cancio: This is scope. (car analogy). * Greg Shatan: since the remit of this group is 9 months it would seem unrealistic to think we would change the engine on the car in that time. (reads JJS comments from chat because of audio issues). * Pedro da Silva: My comment is in line with JC - at this point of time this does not make sense and it is probable that when we complete our analysis of issues we will have the same conclusion but it will be stronger -so we should not deal with this at this point. * Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Denmark is of the view that it is not within our scope to recommend moving ICANN's Place of Incorporation or Headquarters Location from California. But if anybody can point to potential problems, we might look into means to address such problems without changing ICANN's place of incorporation. * David McAuley: As a member of IRP there are issues that are related to IRP and touch on Jurisdiction. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @David: thanks, hope that we keep efforts in parallel well coordinated... * Greg Shatan: straw vote for this or not. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: uncomfortable with this. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): For the reasons given I step away from such a straw poll * Greg Shatan: many of our participants are arguing for this which is why I am bringing this up. Many green ticks no objections. * Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I agree that "moving the headquarters out of California" is not an urgent matter. We should examine what ADDITIONAL jurisdictions could achieve, for specific purposes. * Greg Shatan: We have now covered points 2 and 3 in the agenda. Let us move to item 5. 3. Is the Possibility of Moving ICANN's Place of Incorporation or Headquarters Location from California in Scope? * (see previous point) 4. Confirming and Assessing the Gap Analysis a. "Gap" analyzed in Work Stream 1 b. Result of Gap Analysis in Work Stream 1 c. How should we confirm the WorkStream 1 Gap Analysis? * (Skipped) 5. Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction * Greg Shatan: Presentation of the slide on Multiple Layers. * Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (continuing issues) Multiple layers is interesting but what are the purposes of having additional jurisdictions (additional vs alternate). Second remark (dropped audio), * Greg Shatan: Why are we not using Adobe audio JJS - most use it for visual but audio is on phone because of quality issues. Any comments on the slide? * Pedro da Silva: This is a good start. and how we should start our work. Would like a week to comment on this to see if we need to add to this. After that we could look at each of these as to how they affect the work of ICANN. * Phil Corwin: There is a difference between types of contracts - registries and registrars should probably be under US law just for uniformity. Other parties such as real estate in other countries is another issue. * Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I suggest we use "additional jurisdictions" to avoid confusion about wanting to change headquarters or not. I was also saying it would be useful to examine several tasks where an additional jurisdiction would be useful, e.g. hiring people outside the US (employment, insurance, taxes). * Greg Shatan: A third category could be for the choice of law for enforcing the decisions of the Empowered Community. Encourage everyone to read JC's email. Contracts with contracted parties are silent on choice of law or venue - we should confirm this. Let us look and comment on the slide in Google doc for comments. Next meeting 1900UTC Monday. Adjourned.

1 0

[Ws2-staff_acct] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith Subgroup Meeting #3_ 05 October 2016
by Yvette Guigneaux Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith Subgroup, Meeting #3 - 05 October 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/dQW4Aw 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 1. Rapporteur's report to the plenary planning group dated October 2 - Review and discussion of Report to plenary on activities of the subgroup 2. First draft of guidelines proposed by the Rapporteur to the list on October 2 - Discussion of what the subgroup needs for drafting support from Staff Looking at drafters to look at WS1 and identify applicable items for consideration for the draft report. -Discussion of the report outline and rough draft of what the group might focus its work on in collecting inputs from the group. -Draft contains min. set of guidelines - seeking feedback on draft guidelines. Need to capture questions that need to be addressed in the draft as well as to capture comments. Question raised - should the committee draft what it means to have a reasonable timeframe for an investigation. Might have the Ombudsman be apart of the process to observe to make sure things are fair and the process is followed for removal. Comment from Herb - feels that there is a role for the Ombudsman in this process. Procedures for Board removal is contained in the Bylaws under Article 3 - Removal of Directors 1-8 are subject to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the EC Administration. One of the requirements is that the petition include "supporting rational in reasonable detail." See Annex D, Art. 3, Section 3.1, (D).1.(i), (page 178), SO/AC Board Members are subject to a different procedure. The Petition to remove an SO/AC appointee is made directly to the SO/AC. The SO/AC may accept or reject the petition based on its own internal procedures. Might consider in drafting the report to add examples and what the group was thinking when they drafted a guideline or section of the report. Focus is on how to remove a Board member not on the causes for Board member removal. Herb to consider reviewing draft report for fairness will not draft text for the report as its the community that should decide what it wants. ACTION ITEM; Will set up Google doc for the group for submitting comments on draft. 3. Requirement for legal assistance - Discussion of when to go for external advice and the materials that may need legal review Aware of needs to keep an eye on budget issues when asking for legal review. Will consider going to ICANN Legal first as their expertise is ICANN, but may need additional support and opinion from outside counsel as it relates to an ICANN Board member. Will follow CCWG procedures in requesting legal advice. Concerned raise on potential conflict of interest if just relying on ICANN advice on guidelines. Considering raising the question to the CCWG Legal Subcommittee for consideration of the question. ACTION ITEM: Rapporteur to ask the CCWG Legal Committee on legal conflict with ICANN legal providing opinion of guidelines 4. Requirements for drafting assistance from staff

1 0