November 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript - WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup | Meeting #11 | Monday, 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup - Meeting #11 - 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC will be available on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/2xK4Aw. A copy of the notes from the meeting are available 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMFAw&…> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 9 Participants at start of call. 1. Welcome Sebastien Bachollet: no exceptions. 2. Review of plan for Hyderabad Sebastien Bachollet: (Presentation of slides) Herb Waye: Concerned this report only represents the views of a small number of people and not the community. Sebastien Bachollet: Our work will be presented to the plenary of the CCWG-WS2 so this is not an issue. After it is accepted it will go for public comment to be accepted by the community. Herb Waye: Willing to pay for part of the evaluation, have funds and will have to do one (there may be a conflict of interest with such funding). Klaus: I am just thinking about if anybody outside the WG will actually understand the slides? Somehow I think not. We might need a more "understandable" version. Content is OK but who will understand and do we get the message across? Avri Doria: i think there will be chance to explain t to assembled crowd. In terms of staff accountability, we have included a reference to the necessity of coordinating with this group. Chris LaHatte: the slide about consent of the Ombuds is an issue Avri Doria: but the people listening will all be CCWG participants. Herb Waye Ombuds: Did this idea of consent come about as a copy of the reconsideration new process in the bylaws I wonder? Klaus: I think the cross group issue is critical now, we will need to have a mechanism in place to have the input from the other WG's Bernard Turcotte: @Klaus - the co-chairs advised on the leadership call last week that they would focus on this to ensure synchronicity between sub-groups Klaus: Great, good to know. Thanks Karen Mulberry: I am working out the details for the Review that you have asked for Cheryl Langdon-Orr: we should note that at least from the slide mentioning crossover matters the mention of Elections might be inflammatory for some CCWG Members. Sebastien Bachollet: This was one of my suggestions for our work. Herb Waye Ombuds: That idea is good Seébastien and it could be in the office but I would need to ask for funding for staff... The IOO could become a sort of ethics office Sebastien Bachollet: the evaluation will probably impact our timetable. Klaus: Ethics can never be a subject of an office but an community. Happy to discuss this at a face to face basis. Herb Waye Ombuds: Agree Klaus, two separate hats but some organizations do it as part time functions. Sbastien Bachollet: Shall we resume our calls immediately after Hyderabad. Next meeting on November 14 or 21? will check with staff AOB? (none). Adjourned.

2 1

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #9 | 30 November
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #9 – 30 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-Y7DAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items Action Item - please update slide accordingly. Action Item - We will have a call of expressions of interest for our participation in this groups. Notes Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour Leon Sanchez: Updates to SOIs (none). 2. Administration Leon Sanchez: IRP-IOT Public Comment period open. No Comments. Presentation of WS2 timeline. Sebastien Bachollet: Ombudsman - the review of the Ombudsman office will cause us to be late - so this is a request to move to track 1. Leon Sanchez: Action Item - please update slide accordingly. Kavouss Arasteh: changing of tracks should be decided by the plenary. Leon Sanchez: KA this is what we are doing here. this being said SB’s request seems to be reasonable. Alan Greenberg: If we refuse to honour change request from subgroups, what punishment do we extract if they then do not deliver? Greg Shatan: The original choice was made by the subgroup, so I think changes should be up to the subgroup as well. Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: Good point, Alan. We are volunteers. Alan Greenberg: Perhaps remove rapporteur and replace with people who refuse to agree to their request. Avri Doria: how did track 2 become shorter time frame than track 1? Alan Greenberg: Track 2 allocation was simply those groups who hoped to deliver quickly. Reality has a way of changing our perceptions. Greg Shatan: @Avri, I think it always was, or there's a numbering issue. I can assure you that the Juris SG was always on the long track. Mathieu Weill: KA co-chairs will be monitoring this closely. Leon Sanchez: Travel assistance presentation for ICANN58 3. Legal Committee Leon Sanchez: Replacement of Athina Fragkouli by Michael Abejuela. Also we have not had any response from ICANN legal to the questions we have forwarded. Sebastien Bachollet: when the LC makes a decision of who to send it to should it not come back to the sub-group. Leon Sanchez: We will receive input and then share that response and then decide if we need further input. 4. Follow up on Action Items from ICANN 57 Hyderabad Thomas Rickert: Response to SC sent. Letter to SOAC chairs on ATRT3 has been drafted and will be sent in the next few days. Would ask the members to track this in their respective SOACs. SOAC accountability sub-group request Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have not received any responses yet but we are being updated on the progress regarding this in various SOACs. As such it would seem that we will be receiving replies. Thomas Rickert: the GAC is considering its response and hope to submit for the end of next week. Any question regarding this? Onto Transparency. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: ccNSO contribution also being considered by council now Chris Wilson: the intention is to provide a revised draft for next week. Thomas Rickert: Re discussions with Goran Marby. Concern regarding the complaints officer reporting to legal, the name complaints officer, the relationship to the Ombudsman, the use of the word Organization as well as participation in the 5 internal staff groups. Action Item - We will have a call of expressions of interest for our participation in this groups. Jordan Carter: what would the commitment be to participate? Thomas Rickert: We will provide that information with the request for an expression of interest. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): could you circulate this info (Thomas just explained) on list? Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: Use of the word Organization - many feel it is, and has always been, all of ICANN including the community - and as such disagree with shifting the use to only mean staff (as opposed to calling staff Staff). Concern with the Complaints Officer reporting to ICANN legal. Concern with calling it the Complaints Officer, several alternate suggestions including Issues Office etc.5 internal groups - can the CCWG participate? 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups Mathieu Weill: will start with SOAC Acct. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Presentation of update. Have requested to move delivery to track 1. Mathieu Weill: Niels ten Oever could not attend today - he has reported great progress in Hyderabad and a document is being discussed which we hope will be sent to the plenary for consideration. Ed Morris: Presentation of slides. David McAuley: It may be good to call this a negotiation - but what the CEP group could do is add some formality around it - maybe using the IRP secretariat. Sebastien Bachollet: Why do this twice for the same topic? Alan Greenberg: Not designing process for the sake of process - we have been asked to do this - we probably need case studies to understand this properly. David McAuley (RySG): I think input from Sam or Amy Stathos on prior experience would be helpful Greg Shatan: Mediator is a good idea at this point. DM recognizes we may need to make changes to the Bylaws if we go this way. A mediator would level the playing field. Berry Cobb: For the CEP topic, this is also being discussed (briefly at this stage) within the Subsequent Rnds PDP. I suspect further deliberations will continue at least as to how the process worked or could be improved as it relates to the 2012 round. The WS2-CEP team may want to keep a tab on any of those discussions. Avri Doria: couldn't the form of the mediation be open to the mediator based on their experience and what they see facing them? if we had mediation that is. Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: One of the main problems of the CEP is the lack of meaningful written rules about the process Avri Doria: I accept that the bylaws are not cut in stone and could be changed is necessary. judging whether it is necessary or not remains a question. Greg Shatan: I'd be open to flexibility and exercise of judgment of the mediator (after all, a mediation is only as good as the judgment of the mediator) but the overall concept is to facilitate the negotiation. Mathieu Weill: EM you have been given a number of suggestions. AG's suggestion is good. Would suggest you come back to the plenary with a suggestion so we can discuss this. Next question EM? Ed Morris: IRP encourages conciliation discussion - is it the same as CEP. David McAuley: Sensible Bylaw and we will deal with it in the IRP-IOT. Mathieu Weill: we have cleared up the second question and the IOT will be handling the conciliation aspect. Kavouss Arasteh: Jurisdiction - after 11 meetings we are nowhere. We discuss things and then put them aside and go to other things. Main issue is immunity - there are 2 meanings - uncertain which one we are talking about. Greg Shatan: Disagree with the characterization of the group - do agree we are having difficulties agreeing on what we should be doing. Kavouss Arasteh 3: Greg, yes, we agree to disagree .Then we will get no where Avri Doria: There is the work some agreed to do, and there is the work that is called for in the Bylaws and the Recommendations. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: I don't agree that the work to put together a questionnaire has been complicated. We just need to agree on the formulation of a third additional question and that is it. Greg Shatan: We have not yet agreed that a third question will go out. Edward Morris: Thanks Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see it as progress yes Pedro David McAuley: I get frustrated with Jurisdiction work but this is just a reflection of how difficult the work is and Greg is doing good work leading the group. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Indeed David kinda why it is called "building consensus" it is actual Work1 Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: @Greg: there was considerable support for it and I don't see why the coRapporteurs do not recognize it. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Just lost connection... but to sum my comment up: all are invited to contribute to the two docs we are working on. And we have to find agreement on the three questions to be sent out to stakeholders worldwide on their experiences with ICANN jurisdiction Greg Shatan: There was both support and opposition. We'll need to work it out. David McAuley (RySG): +1 Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yup Kavouss Arasteh: disagree with how questions were drafted. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let' work on the two docs with specific ideas and wording. And let's be flexible on the questions being drafted - after all we are asking for input from the wider community Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Jorge Philip Corwin: Optimism is the triumph of hope over experience. Mathieu Weill: I am following the work of this work very closely. There is progress that is being made although it is slow. We need to trust the process. Let us work on finding areas of agreement and we can build on this. We look forward to an update from the group on the next plenary. Moving to AOB now. 6. AOB Nathalie Vergonelle: update on publication of dashboard - still waiting for input from 4 groups. Mathieu Weill: We have cancelled the call the call next week. Adjourned. Documents · CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-Slides<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63147773/CCWG-Accountabili…> · CEP Slides<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63147773/ceprush.pdf?versi…>

2 2

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary - 1900UTC 30 November 2016 - Slide Deck
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

All, Please find attached the slide deck that will be used for the plenary meeting which includes the agenda (also here): 1 Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour 2 Administration 3 Legal Committee 4 Follow up on Action Items from ICANN 57 Hyderabad 5 Updates/Presentation from sub-groups 6 AOB Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Impact of the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability on Africa
by Karen Mulberry Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Sent on behalf of the Co-Chairs. Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: "acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org" <acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Aziz Hilali <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:22 PM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, "Thomas Rickert (thomas(a)rickert.net)" <thomas(a)rickert.net> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [Acct-Staff] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Impact of the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability on Africa Dear All, Please find attached the AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement discussed and approved at the ICANN 57rd meeting in Hyderabad, entitled "Impact of the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability on Africa". Kind regards, Aziz Hilali Chair of AFRALO (African At-Large Organization)

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 11 | 29 November
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #11 – 29 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/vJDDAw 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): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan:changes to SOIs (none). 2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions Greg Shatan: recap of objective of questions. I have reformulated based on the original draft. Farzaneh Badii: Can the rapporteur or group vet the veracity? Kavouss Arasteh: what is the form of submission? Greg Shatan: we have not decided if submissions can be anonymous. We also have not decided on the mechanics for submitted responses. Per KA we could use Effect vs Affect. David McAuley (RySG): hand down, I agree w/Greg and I personally think it is unwise to ask for replies that are second-hand Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As I said last time, some people with adverse experiences may be reluctant to share them if a certain degree of anonymity is not granted Parminder: (bad audio - unworkable). Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Indirect effects of Jurisdiction - when serving on the Board of ICANN I had to fill out a form for US tax purposes as a Vendor! this is not suitable for volunteers outside of US. Second point - Board accepted creating additional jurisdictions - I had suggested Geneva. Greg Shatan: JJS any comments on questions? Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: I'll see if I can suggest a few lines. Parminder: I will like the chairs to clarify what is their view about other question proposed by some members. We need to include things beyond experiences. Jurisdiction impacts reach people who are beyond the usual ICANN community and these views should be captured. Greg Shatan: In our previous meeting, we agreed that we needed actual experiences of being affected by jurisdiction - which resulted in the questions we received. Now do we want to turn this questionnaire to cover a wider field as some have suggested and also go beyond facts. Parminder: and we have to decide what we do Kavouss Arasteh: The two persons drafting team bluntly rejected the consideration of any questions coming outside that little group Avri Doria: Greg, there are more kinds of facts than you are recognizing. Farzaneh Badii: I think we can work with these questions. we just have to reach out to the affected community, which I have done in the past. Parminder: but we are still at the stage at deciding what we want Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg, I suggest adding something like this: "ICANN's jurisdiction also carries other effects, not directly on the performance of the DNS. 1) All forms used by ICANN, including financial and fiscal, take into account only the US situation. Thus, when ICANN reimburses travel or accommodation costs to its volunteers (such as Member of the Board, or of ALAC), the latter are defined as "vendors", which is inappropriate, considering the free work provided by them to a US corporation. 2) One of the recommendations of ICANN's "Improving Institutional Confidence" (2009) was to set up an "additional jurisdiction" (not a replacement for) the US jurisdiction of ICANN. Specifically, we suggested setting up an additional jurisdiction in Geneva, in order to facilitate ICANN's international work, e.g. in recruiting employees or signing contracts for studies, polls, etc. Pedro da Silva: These questions do not take on the suggestions by Parminder. It would be valuable to understand perceived risks and threats if they are well founded. David McAuley: Support GS in his views. Agree with Parminder that this will not make it to a wider community - regardless what we do. Let us remember our mandate and would not support asking for perceived risks - or at least if it is asked limit it to disputes. Farzaneh Badii: I have researched about the communities that are affected by ICANN jurisdiction in one way or another Kavouss. I think I quite clearly said that above. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Farzaneh: could you share any doc on your research? Jeff Neuman 2: I strongly believe that we should only be looking at impacts of ICANN's jurisdiction on the DNS and/or participation in the multistakeholder model. Other impacts seem to me to be out of scope Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I also think you represent the Iraninan gov at ICANN. You might want to reach out to those who might be affected by ICANN jurisdiction due to sanctions too. Kavouss Arasteh: I am a GAC representative Farzaneh Badii: yes Jorge, I will provide that for the group. either in a blogpost or in a list Kavouss Arasteh:could make question 1 more general? Verifiable is subjective. Do not agree with DM. Farzaneh Badii: yes but you are representing Iran on GAC. you might be able to see what the Iranian community is going through with regards to DNS related issues and jurisdictional issues. Parminder: i find people say affrct only on DNS industry needs to be found. am i correct? Greg Shatan: re Verifiable - direct experience could be taken at face value - however indirect references should be verified. Parminder: i disagree. Effect on everyone, all public, is included. David McAuley (RySG): As to the meaning of "verifiability" I think the responder will factor that in and so it seems a good term to me Avri Doria: please count me among those who support a broader questionnaire Parminder: even if we use the term 'dispute' - disputes can be brought under public law on public interest questions. and they are included. Avri Doria: support wider questionnaire. We could have two parts to the questionnaire. We should not be defeatist - it may be responded by more people than we think. There have been many papers published on this subject which could be relevant. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Avri+1 Parminder: ican now the basis of our differences on how the questionnaire should - some people think we are looking only on the impact on the DNS industry which can be reached and speak up directly, on their own. Other people think the wider public impact is as or perhaps more important. Mary Uduma: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder +1 Parminder: Such impacts are found in different ways than impact on DNS industry can be found, for which the current questionnaire may be useful - though it still is limited for even that purpose Greg Shatan: more legal questions should be submitted to lawyers for professional input. Avri Doria: its not just about legal views - we need to have a look at the broader picture - having lawyers do this work could not be a good investment. Also, we never make decisions on only one meeting usually. Kavouss Arasteh: Once again questions must be sufficiently broad Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: link to "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008, https://archive.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm Kavouss Arasteh: Could staff provide a link to that material on mailing list David McAuley (RySG): I think Avri makes a fair point about two meetings Greg Shatan: AD good points. We can continue to discuss the questionnaire. Could we consider two questionnaires which would allow us to get this fact based one out sooner? We also need a reading list? Parminder: We cannot issue multiple questionnaires. Avri Doria: the questionnaire would help build that list. we could ask people for references. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: and more specifically, see chapter 3 and its item 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as follows: "3.5. During its consultations (not only recently but over the last two years), the PSC has received input from global stakeholders external to the United States that ICANN should also be represented in other jurisdictions. The PSC believes that that it would assist increase the credibility of ICANN’s claim to be an entity serving a global community for ICANN to have representation in other countries additional to that which it will always possess in the United States.3.6. The PSC emphasizes that an additional legal presence will strengthen ICANN's fundamental multi-stakeholder model and underline the element of public trust that is a key element of its mission. The PSC believes that such a presence is not about reducing accountability. Indeed it will provide for more acceptance and confidence in ICANN as it will have a legal personality that is additional to its US presence. (...)" Kavouss Arasteh: can we advance on questions given the time remaining. David McAuley (RySG): I think we should stick to the remit found in Annex 12 Greg Shatan: Agree with DM. Vinay Kesari: Hi Greg, all - I unfortunately have to step away a few mins early. If I could just ask everyone to also devote some thought to how we're getting this questionnaire out, who it will be sent out to, etc. (once of course the questions are settled), we could perhaps come to that separately on list or on the next call. David McAuley (RySG): I remain "con" on questions asking for answers going beyond direct experience, with respect Avri Doria: i remain pro, also with respect. Greg Shatan: temperature check - who wants to add an additional question to this (and would need to define the question). No clear result. Parminder: I am still unable to hear or understand what is the danger of that additional question Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly look at my suggestion to amend Q1 and Q 2 Jeff Neuman 2: I like impact on the DNS and/or their participation in the ICANN multistakeholder community Parminder: yes, id work with avri and others who supported Parminder: you want it done now? Avri Doria: you confused it. Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff , I tend to agree with you , to some extent Avri Doria: check for narrow, cross for borader. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: like Avri, I favour a wider or additional question. Kavouss Arasteh: Jean- Jaques+1 Parminder: lets do it in the next two days and close it on the elist Avri Doria: cross is red, check is green Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): broader Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I have very bad connection, but please note my support for Avri's points Kavouss Arasteh: Made some progress - we have to develop the questions more. Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): +1 Avri Parminder: we cannot issue two questionnaires in quick succession ... that is even logistically not wise, apart from logically not ok David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Parminder - two questionnaires is not good Greg Shatan: Let us work on the list on defining that additional question Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: There is significant support for an additional question. Let's please have a small group elaborate this additional question in the next 1-2 days. Parminder: i can cut paste from the list -- but it will be impossible to close it Parminder: there have been suggestions on an proposed text, we should go by that, without an entirely fresh text Kavouss Arasteh: Pedro, in principle, I agree to either broader the existing questions or draft additional questions$ Parminder: I mean additional question of course Avri Doria: ok Greg Shatan: (lost connexion) Bernard Turcotte: We are at the top of the hour - as proposed by GS we will pursue the questionnaire discussion on list. Meeting Adjourned. Documents Presented · Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/Experience%20Ques…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions (1).pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/InfluenceofExisti…> · MultipleLayersofJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/MultipleLayersofJ…>

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-IRPIOT-Public Consultation now open
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

All, Please note that the public consultation on the Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP) from the IRP-IOT team is now open at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp-procedures-2016-11-28-en Thank you. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 13 | 22 November
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #13 here; https://community.icann.org/x/lI7DAw 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 · ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of themAction Items · ACTION (Drafting team) come up with new proposal for 2nd reading. · ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal Notes 1. Administrivia | Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc. · No audio only. · No SOI updates · No updates to agenda · Legal questions now submitted to ICANN Legal ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of them 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI 1st reading continued f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law’ * Avri: The interpretation here seems stronger than the initial text. * Greg: I don't see that as stronger. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): this sentence is about "obligations" - it does not prevent ICANN from "taking HR into account" beyond that * Group approves this interpretation. g. ‘‘This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’ · Kavouss: second part ("or coerce third parties" ) is not quite clear - could we define the language being used ("third parties": who are these)? · David: agrees, there appears to be a disconnect between the 1st and 2nd part · Greg: implicitely refers back to Ruggie's principle · Tatiana Tropina: so I don't think anyone argues about concepts but just about the clarity of this text · David: I think the problem starts with the use of the word "impose" · Kavouss: "of those third parties" also needs to be clarified · Avri: does it mean that there should be compliance of contracted parties? · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "without prejudice to what is stated elsewhere"? · Niels ten Oever: Maybe this: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to take enforcement action to any other party or ask other parties to take enforcement action. · ACTION (Drafting team) come up with new proposal for 2nd reading. 2nd reading · Kavouss: suggest we wait till next meeting before we do the 2nd reading. · Niels: 1st reading was done during last meeting, there was time between the 2 readings. a.‘within the scope of its Mission’ · agreement from the group b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week) · Kavouss: replace "described" by "stipulated" · Greg: we don't nee "legal" before "hierarchy" in the last paragraph · Jorge: hierarchy could be moral, pragmatical etc. This is a legal test, so it should be a "legal hierarchy", · Greg: I disagree that it's a legal balancing test. · Tatiana: I agree, it's not a legal test, and there is no hierarchy between core values. · Jorge: why are we reopening this discussion? if so, there are other I could reopen too. · Tatiana: We could say that there is no pre-existing hierarchy, or no predetermined hierarchy. · Kavouss Arasteh: Retention or otherwise of term"Legal" does not create any problem .However, it retention may give the impression that there are other types of hierarchy than legal,thus I suggest to remove it ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal c.‘respecting’ · Not discussed d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’ · Not discussed e. ‘as required by applicable law’ · Not discussed 3. AOB

1 0

Notes & Chat | CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Call | 23NOV16
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #12 from 23NOV16 @ 05:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw A copy of the notes and chat are 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMFAw&…> ________________________________ Notes WS2 - SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #12 | Wednesday, 23 November @ 05:00 UTC 1. Review of any AI's from call #11 on October 20th see https://community.icann.org/x/mJDDAw[community.icann.org] (5 min CLO) Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Farzaneh Badi excuse. No one on audio only. Any changes to agenda (none and no other AOB). 2. Update on any Sub Team Activities since our last call (5 min SDB/FB) Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Action items since last call. Call for volunteers for the two teams - methodology to review survey results. Giovani Sepia has accepted to participate. Also ask Thomas Rickert for volunteers from RSSAC and SSAC. Proposed approach should be reviewed at the mid-December meeting. Second recommendation is to move this group from a track 2 to a track 1 timeline. We will confirm this to the co-chairs on the plenary. Second drafting team to look at reframing of the existing report material and ongoing reporting - still looking for more volunteers. Steve DelBianco: Repackaging of the progress report to the plenary in Hyderabad. Looks at how to present conclusions and recommendations. Any conclusions included are simply place holders which can be revised based on my expectations. (review of document). Alan Greenberg: question on global public interest. Kavous Arasteh: several issues are being discussed simultaneously. IRP applicable to SOAC? Steve DelBianco: These words have been with us since the beginning. We cannot say what Applicable means until we get to the third track. Kavous Arasteh: Concept of mutual accountability is only conceptual need to turn it into something practical. Avri Doria: question about internal accoutability notion. How does this internal responsibility include outreach etc. Steve DelBianco: We are waiting on each SOAC to answer the survey on this to see what is being done. Avri Doria: If they are internally responsible how can they be held responsible for outreach? Steve DelBianco: There are some questions on this. This will be highly specific to each SOAC. Avri Doria: still a pending question regarding this type of accountability which would have to be more than just internal. Sebastien Bachollet: We should balance the question of mutual accountability - we need to be accountable to our neighbors. We need to have this discussion. Internal vs External can be a complex issue for some SOACs. Steve DelBianco: (discussion of ccNSO vs gNSO). Avri Doria: the same linguistic problem that this group has with mutual accountability came up in staff accountability discussions. also felt that the word accountability was too Kavous Arasteh: who is accountable to who and break down per SOAC. Hierarchy of accountability is important to understand. Steve DelBianco: This is covered in the questions we have sent to the SOACs. Kavous Arasteh: On Accountability roundtable need to consider recent email exchange. How do we implement this. Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Kavouss -- MAR is as-described by the email where our expert (Willie Currie) introduced the concept Avri Doria: i favor a transparent process for MAR Avri Doria: i think giving this up would be a loss Christopher Wilkinson: (muffled audio) would be difficult to institutionalize/formalize this. Finally, we need to keep things simple. Overall agree with SDB. Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: @Avri -- Sebastien seems to agree. I would encourage you two draft an alternative recommendation, please ! Cheryl Langdon-Orr: On MAR let us leave it as it is in the text now (SDB text recommending not to endorse implementation of MAR). Encourage people to join this drafting team and put in alternatives. Let us leave this as an open option until early in the new year. Separately is there a place for a separate document for implementing recommendations? Please think about this. Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: regarding transparency, please note that one of our questions to each AC/SO is "Transparency mechanisms for your AC/SO deliberations, decisions, and elections" Avri Doria: i think the recommendation should be bracketed. Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Avri -- in brackets, it says [preliminary recommendation] 3. CONTINUATION of Agenda from meeting #11 (folded into previous discussions) 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule * 17 November 1900 * 23 November 0500 (note this is a Wednesday meeting to allow for US thanksgiving) * 1 December 1300 (back to Thursday meetings going forward) * 8 December 1900 * 15 December 0500 * 22 December - no meeting * 29 December - no meeting - no staff available * 5 January - no meeting - difficult to get participants before the next Monday * 12 January 1300 * 19 January 0500 * 26 January 1300 * 2 February 1900 * 9 February 0500 * 16 February 1300 * 23 February 1900 * 2 March 0500 * 9 March 1300 * 16 March 1900 * 23 March 0500 * 30 March 1300 5. AOB and recap of any AI's (5 min CLO) Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No other business. Reminder that this group only has 12 meetings prior to ICANN 58 and there is much work to be done. Need participants to work on documents and positions.Adjourned. ________________________________ CHAT Yvette Guigneaux: Welcome all to the WS2 - SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #12 | Wednesday, 23 November @ 05: 00 UTC! Kavouss Arasteh: Hi Yevette Yvette Guigneaux: Hi Kavouss - can you hear me? Yvette Guigneaux: Calling you Kavouss Yvette Guigneaux: Kavouss - checking audio for you but didn't get a response Yvette Guigneaux: can you hear me? Yvette Guigneaux: just want to make sure your audio is working before the call starts Yvette Guigneaux: Kavouss? Bernard Turcotte: hello all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hi everyone... 3 mins to start time Kavouss Arasteh: steve Kavouss Arasteh: GM Kavouss Arasteh: PLS SPEAK SLOWLY ALL THE TIME Yvette Guigneaux: Sync enabled if needed Yvette Guigneaux: that should have said scrolling enabled Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Thanks Yvette. Sebastien (ALAC): Seams not to be in my mail box : ( Bernard Turcotte: Steve had to send it to me directly Sebastien (ALAC): OK thanks Yvette Guigneaux: doing that now Bernard Turcotte: have sent to Seb Yvette Guigneaux: Sebastien - your doc is in skype now if you need it Yvette Guigneaux: will email as well Sebastien (ALAC): Thanks Yvette Guigneaux: Draft report emailed to all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thank you Yvette Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Correct STeve David is able to join us next week and we trust Sebastien and Herb will be involved with this discussion next week as well re IRP Kavouss Arasteh: What we mean by external Kavouss Arasteh: external to totally outside SO/AC? Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: yes, Kavouss Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Mutual Accountability Roundtable is on the next page, Sebastien. We'll get to ti. avri doria: the same linguistic problem that this group has with mutal accountabilty came up in staff accountabilty doscissions. also felt that the word accountabilty was too strong, and that it was more of a notion of mutual collegiality. Bernard Turcotte: 30 minute mark Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: @Kavouss -- that is indeed our first question to each SO/AC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): noted Benie were on track i Ageda item 3 about to move to MAR Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Need to moe onto the next section Steve... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): moe - move Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): : -) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): You can take up to 10 mn on this Steve but lesss is also good ;-) Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Kavouss -- MAR is as-described by the email where our expert (Willie Currie) introduced the concept avri doria: i favor a transparent process for MAR Kavouss Arasteh: We may say Kavouss Arasteh: our understanding of the term is Kavouss Arasteh: and provide our understanding Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Kavouss, the recommendation says "as described above" avri doria: i think giving this up would be a loss Kavouss Arasteh: we do not want to give up that all Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: @Avri -- Sebastien seems to agree. I would encourage you to draft an alternative recommendation, please ! Yvette Guigneaux: Christopher - if possible please back up slightly from your microphone - audio is muffled otherwise Bernard Turcotte: please mute if not speaking Bernard Turcotte: 15 minutes left avri doria: and we might have a split recommendation. avri doria: i.e. bring the question to the the full group. Yvette Guigneaux: Christopher - my apologies but we're getting background noise on your line so it was muted Yvette Guigneaux: if you wish to speak i can unmute you in a heartbeat- no worries there Yvette Guigneaux: just wanted you to know avri doria: is the doc on drive anywhere? Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: regarding transparency, please note that one of our questions to each AC/SO is "Transparency mechanisms for your AC/SO deliberations, decisions, and elections" avri doria: i think the recommendation should be bracketed. Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: Avri -- in brackets, it says [preliminary recommendation] Steve DelBianco [CSG - GNSO]: I go with 3rd option, Cheryl Bernard Turcotte: https: //urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF-5FgBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26iFYU41ac_edit-23gid-3D1330011665&d=DgICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xjNMRR-fjlgBx7tqUEv8lZv2O9RJyMyqWkymcecegCUuwDxFVsW6VBuvkqKnS_lk&m=Sb5GsIb3M7n9fpS6cgde6jqN39klLQeOY-_TFveWKb8&s=Ghps-oZuf9e6jVCofJSPL8V18QJDQIEaTmPsJK22qCc&e=<http://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads…> Bernard Turcotte: bye all Kavouss Arasteh: Bye to all Sivasubramanian M 2: bye Erich Schweighofer: Servus from Vienna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks everyone Bye for now...

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Reminder regarding American Thanksgiving
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

All, For our non-American participants please note that starting EOB today Wednesday November 23 that the US will be going into its Thanksgiving holiday break which is officially from Thursday November 24 to Sunday November 27 inclusive. Given most CCWG-Accountability staff are US based staff support will not be available for meetings or other activities during this period. For our American staff and colleagues we wish them a happy Thanksgiving. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

Notes & Chat | CCWG Accountability WS2 - REVIEWING THE CEP | 23NOV16
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Hello all, The notes & the chat for CCWG Accountability WS2 Reviewing the CEP from 23 November 2016 @ 13:00 UTC are available 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMFAw&…> ________________________________ Notes: I. Introduction, SOI, roll call Ed Morris: No SOI updates. Review of agenda. II. Report from Hyderabad India: Meeting with Becky Burr Ed Morris: Confirmed with BB that the CEP that there remains a financial incentive. Also instead of starting from scratch we should look at mediation providers for their rules. III. Bylaws Ana Lupe:(presentation of slides) Ed Morris: Mediator vs CEP and can a mediator be present at the first meeting. Chris Disspain: It is possible where ICANN would only be a facilitator. (.wine example). Some form of termination must be present so it is not used as a delaying tactic. IV. CEP Rules Farzaneh Badii: usually in arbitration there is a requirement that parties negotiate prior to starting arbitration. So, do we want a mediation process, or negotiation or conciliation. We need to know what is type of conflicts we are looking to resolve. Ed Morris: SE mentioned the value of old CEP was the informal nature. Under the new Bylaws we seem to possibly moving towards mediation. Farzaneh Badii: We have to understand if we want a third party present officially. Also have to consider confidentiality requirements - have to weigh possibility of resolving vs the need for other parties to know in some cases. Ana Loup: worth considering when we engage with parties who have been involved in CEP at ICANN. Chris Disspain: Have you considered if we need CEP at all if there is a potential for mediation. Ed Morris: I have considered in the past. Chris Disspain: We need a process to be a precursor to IRP - it could simply a mediation process for which there are a lot of existing rules and providers for such services. Ed Morris: This is appealing especially given the current CEP is a hybrid which is sometimes difficult to frame and understand. Ana Loup: If CEP was reframed as a conventional mediation it might get more participation. Chris Disspain: If there is a mediation step to IRP is there a need for CEP also - or we can merge mediation with CEP. Alan Greenberg: SOunds like worth at least a discussion. V. How to engage with community members with CEP experience? A discussion / proposed solutions (Not addressed on call). VI. Way forward Ed Morris: we have a problem finding people who have been through CEP. VII. AOB Ed Morris: will reach out to David McAuley on the topic of CEP vs Mediation as a pre IRP and then present some questions to the plenary next week. ________________________________ Chat: Yvette Guigneaux: Welcome all to the WS2 - Reviewing the CEP Subgroup Meeting #2 | Wednesday, 23 November @ 13:00 UTC! Olevie: Good morning from Lome, Togo Yvette Guigneaux: Good morning Olevie Edward Morris: Hello everybody! Anna Loup: Hello! Farzaneh Badii: Hi there. I am listening with one ear here, so apologies in advance if I miss something Farzaneh Badii: oops that came out as odd! I meant I had to combine attending this meeting with other things : ) Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: hello all Chris Disspain: greetings Chris Disspain: I am both on the phone and adobe but will drop off from adobe in 20 minutes or so Farzaneh Badii: if it was a confidential process how can people tell us about their experience? Farzaneh Badii: we have to clarify that Yvette Guigneaux: they do now Ed Yvette Guigneaux: Scrolling available for all Edward Morris: Thanks Yvette Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih: Greeting to all Farzaneh Badii: I like the idea of ditching CEP. Anna Loup: agreed Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih: From what little I understand at this point, either mediation, or a CEP as a mediation step before an IRP would be both more efficient and more effective. Chris Disspain: Droping from adobe but still on phone Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih: Question: Would mediation be manditory or optional prior to IRP? Farzaneh Badii: so we will have a Chinese Med/Arb : ) Alan Greenberg: SOunds like worth at least a discussion. avri doria: i have sent both questions off to the IOT list. Farzaneh Badii: but do they want to share? Farzaneh Badii: next week? Farzaneh Badii: I wont be there Farzaneh Badii: but it's ok. : ) Farzaneh Badii: no questions. thank you avri doria: i guess i should not have sent a note already. oh well. will pull back to background. Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih: okay Anna Loup: thanks! Edward Morris: Thanks everyone

1 0