November 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Legal Committee Meeting on 17 November 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 22, 2016

Nov. 22, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Legal Committee Meeting on 17 November @ 16:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/N5HDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items: · LS to forward Ombudsman conflict question to legal for an opinion ASAP. · DM to reframe questions from Human Rights sub-group and distribute to rapporteur and Legal Committee Friday. · Staff to Doodle poll Legal Committee members as to the date and time of the next meeting (in two weeks given US Thanksgiving next week). Notes (including relevant portions of the chat) 1. WELCOME | ROLL CALL 2. REVIEW OF WORKING METHOD Robin Gross: One of the reasons we worked well in WS1 was because we were a small committee. I hope we can keep that element in WS2. Edward Morris: +1 Robin Leon Sanchez: This is our objective. Also AF will be replaced by Michael Abejuela if confirmed by the plenary. SM has stepped down and Greg Shattan has been named to the legal committee but could not attend today. Robin Gross: our meetings will be recorded and transcribed as with all meetings, si? Bernard Turcotte: this is the default Robin Leon Sachez: this group should consider if all requests can go to ICANN Legal - if this is the case then the request should be sent to them - the legal committee should then review the response to see if it meets the requirements. Ed Morris: if we send it to ICANN legal we will not get billed for any external legal costs billed to ICANN for this. Leon Sanchez: correct. Ed Morris: If we know ICANN is conflicted from the start do we still have to send it to ICANN legal? Leon Sanchez: No - this is the job of the legal committee - it can decide to go external first if there is a clear problem. Robin Gross: As long as we (LC) retain the right to ask whichever lawyers we want to ask. Robin Gross: And we don't need approval for our decisions from ICANN as to which lawyer. Thomas Rickert: Just a reminder we want to be as cost efficient as possible. We do not want to ask for opinions that ICANN could already have in hand. We need to try to be open as open as possible - even if ICANN's position is deemed biased it could still be very valuable information for us. The objective is to obtain knowledge for things they already have. 3. REVIEW OF CURRENT REQUESTS & Robin Gross: I'm pretty sure we are going to need independent advice regarding the "good faith conduct" issue, but am happy to ICANN legal to have a go first. But this is the sort of issue where conflict exists. Leon Sanchez: Ombudsman question regarding a potential conflict having current Ombudsman on drafting team? Robin Gross: I'd like to know what outside counsel thinks about this issue David McAuley: would seem a good question for ICANN Legal. Ed Morris: More in line with RG on this but ok to ask ICANN Legal and try to get a response ASAP. Leon Sanchez: Yes this is the approach. Action Item - Assign to ICANN Legal. Next question Re Applicable Law - this is a direct question to ICANN Legal and we should approve this to go to ICANN Legal. David McAuley: Disclaimer - I am a member of the Human Rights team and I have taken a position on this and my proposals have been included in the current draft. I have no question sending it to ICANN legal but it should be expanded to be more detailed. Leon Sanchez: Agree with DM and would ask him to draft the expansion he has presented here and then confirm with the HR Rapporteur. Next human rights question vs Respect. Any objections going to ICANN legal. David McAuley: Again, issue with the way the question is posed. Leon Sanchez: DM could you help us refine all these questions for the human rights group and obtain the ok. David McAuley: Can do but can only get to it tomorrow. 4. AOB Leon Sanchez: any other points? (none). Adjourned. Next meeting after next week - can we have a Doodle poll for this. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #11 - 22 November 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 22, 2016

Nov. 22, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #11 – 22 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/VQ6sAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes 1. Introduction/SOIs 2. Organizational Matters: a. Meetings schedule Bernard Turcotte: current reserved schedule is: 23 November 1300 2 December 1900 16 December 1900 13 January 1900 27 January 1900 David McAuley: we will review at the end of this meeting. b. Sub-Teams? David McAuley: too early to discuss. 3. IoT Tasks Ahead (generally) David McAuley: we have received a number of requests after having presented the Supplementary Rules to the CCWG plenary and obtained approval for public consultation. How should we handle these? Becky Burr: JC has asked about translation. KC had a point about joinder and if additional rules were needed for this. David McAuley: Were these discussed in Hyderabad? Becky Burr: no these were simply noted as questions. David McAuley: As such we should proceed to the public consultation with the documents as presented in Hyderabad - any objections? (none). Greg Shatan: Is it the intention to issue a revised set of suppl. rules. and would we then have another round of public consultation? David McAuley: good question, uncertain. Becky Burr: we anticipated that these would be iterative going forward. There is no requirement for these to go to public comment. We need the suppl. rules done ASAP. David McAuley: there is another issue wrt timing that has been going on via the list between BB and MH (presentation of issue per email discussion). Are we ok to go forward with the current language on this? Becky Burr: 45 days of becoming aware of material affect and in any case no later than 1 year after the action/inaction giving rise to the bylaws violation Chris Disspain: that's what I recall was agreed Becky Becky Burr: I think there is concern about the meaning of that provision. There is no substantive disagreement - simply concern that the wording may not properly represent the requirement. The time period starts when the policy is enforced (and not approved). David McAuley: do you think the current wording is ok for this BB? Becky Burr: yes. Malcolm Hutty: There is little difference between our positions of intent but not comfortable that the words will be interpreted as such. We need to be more clear. David McAuley: I am in agreement with Becky. Chris Disspain: hasn't this gone out for public comment? David McAuley: not yet Chris Becky Burr: this also can be an issue for public comment Chris Disspain: well, that was what I was going to say...Malcolm, how do you think the words would be interpreted? Becky Burr: it has to be the party - the materially affected party has standing. David McAuley: MH it would seem the best way forward on this issue could be for it to be brought up in the public comment. Chirs Dispain: what it sounds like is that some of us are clear - what is it that is unclear? Becky Burr: I think we can go out for public comment and ask Holly to provide an explanation. Malcolm Hutty: (registrant example of rule being applied two years later.) Becky Burr: This example is particularly complicated and extremely unlikely. Part of issue is whether it is action or inaction of ICANN or the registry or registrar. Becky Burr: ;Let's just say that a policy that is facially invalid can be challenged any time Malcolm Hutty: a registrant can bring such a challenge and if we restrict this then we are going against the Bylaws. Chris Dispain: what we are talking about is timing - the right for a registrant to bring an IRP is absolute. The current set of rules have been approved by the CCWG in Hyderabad - any comments should be provided in the public consultation. Becky Burr; provided, however, that a Consensus Policy that cannot be applied consistent with ICANN"s Bylaws can be challenged by a Materially Affected Party at any time. or Malcolm, you and I can propose a change to address facially invalid provisions in the comments. Chris Dispain: There is no problem with making these comments in the public consultation. Any form of substantive change to the document would need to go to a second round of public comment. David McAuley: We need to move forward and as such would request to we ask MH to submit this as a comment. Becky Burr: I would suggest that in the meantime that we ask for an opinion from Sidley on this question and if there is an issue we could request suggested fixes while the public consultation is ongoing. David McAuley: We would essentially be asking Sidley a question for a comment. Malcolm Hutty: would support this. David McAuley: Myself, BB and MH will develop a question for Sidley. 4. Supplemental Rules – clarification/work? 5. AOB David McAuley: will not have a call on Dec2 and will maintain Dec 16 call. Marianne Georgelin: The time is not convinient for europeans David McAuley: Agreed but would ask for indulgence for the December 16 call – will review meeting times at that call. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 21 November
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #10 – 21 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pJDDAw 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: * Milton and CW to draft a few questions for review by the group. * Everyone to go to our 2 Documents. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Back - Vinay Kesari 2.Setting the Scene - Vinay Kesari Kavouss Arasteh: I am not optimistic of the results we can achieve here - did not understand the introduction. We are widening the subject instead of focusing. Vinay Kesari: Agree with KA - we need to focus on our core task without removing any possible outcomes. Greg Shatan: Agree. We do not need to identify solutions to problems that have not been identified. Note: discussions surrounding Jorge Cancio’s suggestion of a consultation/questionnaire generated most of the traffic in the chat and this should be read in conjunction with these notes. 3.Work Plan Greg Shatan: will have to redo after this meeting. It seems early for a public consultation. Vidushi Marda: I am new to the group - where are we vs jurisdiction of incorporation. Greg Shatan: best to catch up reading transcripts and the email lists. Jurisdiction of incorporation is not off the table but we have agreed to only consider it if it comes up as the only solution to a given issue. Jorge Cancio: I was proposing a fact finding exercise especially those who have contracts or those who could be considered materially harmed. Greg Shatan: We need more factual information from concerned parties. We need to get a small group working on the list to begin designing this. David McAuley: This should be about getting facts and not opinions. Tijani Ben Jemaa: what are the points we have difficulty to get to consensus on. Greg Shatan: I see it differently - this is about getting factual information from users. Kavouss Arasteh: I have no idea what is a stress test and was not very useful in WS1. What surveys, about what, why? Few people would reply to what I understand what we are talking about - this is not what we have said we would work on. We need to focus on applicability of jurisdiction of contracts. Greg Shatan: We are not looking for legal opinions or theories. What we are discussing is getting real facts from contracted parties - things that have happened. It is in our mandate to get facts. Kavouss Arasteh: you are focusing on the past - under the new rules there may be new issues. Greg Shatan: KA this is certainly not the objective - but we could really use facts from the past. Vinay Kesari: Agree with GS. We only know information that is public. The questions would allow us to possibly identify facts that are not currently in the public domain. Greg Shatan: temperature check on doing the questionnaire - general support for it. Could we have volunteers to prepare the questions in the chat. We would need a draft for Monday - CW, MM - this is our drafting group which will return the questions to this group with their draft. 4.Document and Discussion: “The Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes” Greg Shatan: we need to get back to working on these documents. especially focused on Disputes involving ICANN 5.Document and Discussion: “Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction” Greg Shatan: needs further review and comments from all participants. 6.Suggestion: Reading List Greg Shatan: We should set up a reading list on our Wiki. Kavouss Arasteh: What do we mean by influence? Andrea Brambilla: (govt of Canada) supports the request for a questionnaire. All the work of WS1 is based on current ICANN jurisdiction and this should not be disturbed - it is more important to reinforce accountability. 7.Possible Use of Experts Greg Shatan: refers to the use of legal. If we have questions we need to submit these to the legal comm. but we are not there yet. 8.AOB Greg Shatan: Any other business? (none). 9. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Meeting #11_17 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 18, 2016

Nov. 18, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #11 on 17 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mJDDAw A copy of the notes and action items are found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ACTION ITEMS ACTION: reach out to Giovani to see if he could help w/ ccNSO. ACTION: Ask Thomas Rickert to help us identify volunteers for RSSAC & SSAC · Suggestion to document the data captured. · Graphical representation of data collected (Yes/No data collection) · 3 general areas to organize the answers: Accountability, Transparency, Participation ACTION (subgroup): meet and suggest way forward to organize the data capture by next week ACTION (staff): support subgroup as necessary ACTION (staff): move topic to track 1 * Suggestion to form a small drafting subteam to gather and start framing the report. * 1st step could be to re-arrange the existing report. ACTION (subgroup): form drafting subteam * Suggestion to have a discussion early January to organize ourselves on the drafting. * Suggestion to poll our subgroup participants on this topic ahead of that meeting. Notes 0. Call Administration · Cheryl will update her SOI to reflect her recent appointment. 1. Review of any AI's from call #10 on October 20th · No outstanding action items. 2. Recap of Hyderabad Meeting Recap by Steve DelBianco * Concerns expressed around the concept of Mutual Accountability Round-Table * IRP applicability to SO/AC: very little interest, but some concern (too heavy weight, too complex). * Notion of the word "effectiveness": little interest on this track too. * SO/AC questionnaire: we'll need to nudge them to provide answers, which could be multi-layered for some 3. Next Steps in our Work Plan - Methodology for review of replies to our Survey questions (from mid Dec) * Questions reviewed and sent out while in Hyderabad. * Need to identify who in this group is more familiar with each SO/AC to help interpret the answers. * We could catalog mechanisms in place. * Suggestion that a small subgroup be formed with expertise from each SO/AC to do an initial review. * Volunteers: - Steve (GNSO) - Olga (GAC) - Seun (ALAC) - Michael (ASO) ACTION: reach out to Giovani to see if he could help w/ ccNSO. ACTION: Ask Thomas Rickert to help us identify volunteers for RSSAC & SSAC · Suggestion to document the data captured. · Graphical representation of data collected (Yes/No data collection) · 3 general areas to organize the answers: Accountability, Transparency, Participation ACTION (subgroup): meet and suggest way forward to organize the data capture by next week ACTION (staff): support subgroup as necessary - Use of IRP track - starting the discussion; we propose a briefing from IRP WT Chair at next call * IRP was suggested in WS1 as a mechanism to end a dispute regarding SO/AC accountability. * A tutorial on how the IRP works would not be relevant. * Suggestion to bring in Ombudsman to get his point of view. * Here is what the Bylaws say to us about IRP: "Assess whether the IRP would also be applicable to SO and AC activities." * Assumption is that this would be an adaptation of the IRP, to evaluate violation of an organization's charter. * Suggestion to review the CCWG proposal to see if more clarification can be found, else it would be up to the group to clarify. * Jurisdiction and costs are significant issues for IRP, that would have to be tackled. - Preparation for next report to CCWG and timeline adjustments required propose a small drafting team be formed * Timeline presented. 1st draft of report should be drafted by early December, according to this timeline. * Group agrees this timeline is too tight to be met. ACTION (staff): move topic to track 1 * Suggestion to form a small drafting subteam to gather and start framing the report. * 1st step could be to re-arrange the existing report. ACTION (subgroup): form drafting subteam * Suggestion to have a discussion early January to organize ourselves on the drafting. * Suggestion to poll our subgroup participants on this topic ahead of that meeting. - When and how to approach the matter of our mandate to discuss the Mutual Accountability Framework (as proposed for consideration in WS1) and any other Mutual Accountability Matters * proposal to do a fresh write-up of what works and what doesn't about MAR - Basic foundations for our required 'Enhancing SOAC Accountability Workplan' Item moved to next meeting - Our part in 2017 Public Comment documentation * Item moved to next meeting 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule * Wednesday, 05:00 UTC 5. AOB and recap of any AI's

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-LegalCommittee Procedure for WS2 sub-groups requesting legal advice
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Nov. 18, 2016

Nov. 18, 2016

Hello all, This is simply a reminder that now the the CCWG-Accountability Legal Committee is back in operation that all requests for legal advice, even from ICANN legal, need to be coordinated by this group to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure proper tracking. Please see the attached document which captures the key responsibilities and processes of the Legal Committee as presented and accepted by the plenary earlier this year. Should you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact me or our support staff. Kind regards, Leon.

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #12 | 15NOV16
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 15, 2016

Nov. 15, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes and details for the CCWG Accountability WS2 - Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #12 here; https://community.icann.org/x/jI7DAw The notes are also listed below. Thank you! Kind 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 Human Rights Meeting #12 (15 November @ 19:00 UTC) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Administrivia · Apologies: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Matthew Shears, Tatiana Tropina · Roll call will be taken from AC room. · No audio only participants. · 3 open questions to ICANN legal. ACTION (Staff): follow-up with ICANN Legal - Karen: Answers will be provided next week. · Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): small update to SOI mine is yet to reflect my new role as ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council update later today · David McAuley: I think I will need to update my SOI as well as I am taking over as Rapporteur of IRP IoT - not sure if that will require a new SOI but should mention it here just in case 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI a.‘within the scope of its Mission’ · "core value" should be capitalized · David McAuley: My comment - this section appears fine · No other comments from the group on this section. b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ · Discussed the balancing process: · avri doria: In this balancing can a core value be violated? · The FoI says: "The result of a balancing-test cannot cause ICANN to violate any Commitment, as Commitments are binding." · David McAuley: where one core value is honored another might be partially honored or not honored in a balancing test it seems. · Chris LaHatte: the usual test for breaches of human rights is one of proportionality. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Normally in a balancing test you need to address each and every factor (here each core value) and motivate how this is done and with what result. · John Laprise: So, on a given decision/issue. could the community demand of ICANN an explanation of how a particular core value was weighed/applied/respected? · Pending response from ICANN legal on how the balancing works · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let's also wait for ICANN Legal and their take on how commitments and core values are meant to work together · Might require additional text, after responses are received from Legal ICANN. · Suggestion to change "cannot" into "may not" / ""should not" / "shall not" / "must not" . "Must not" is retained, to be further discussed on the list if necessary. · Suggestion to add references next to quotations. c.‘respecting’ · No comments from the group. d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’ · No comments from the group. e. ‘as required by applicable law’ · Daniel Appelman: When read with the "respecting" explanation, this implies that ICANN has no obligation to respect human rights except where national laws directly place ICANN under those obligations. · avri doria: David does that not make this meaningless? or rather it just says forget about HR, just obey the law? · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I had similar concerns to those expressed by Avri. But I feel the Core Value not only restricts ICANN to avoid violating HR. It also brings with it a positive element to be guided by internationally recognised human rights in its actions · Greg Shatan: The point is to abide by the laws but still respect Human Rights. · Daniel Appelman: ICANN respecting human rights "as required by applicable law" makes little sense when the next section says that mostly only States are required to respect human rights. · avri doria: if there is no law protecting a hr, do we still need to care about the hr. · David McAuley: it's not a matter of not caring, but a matter of observing the law · Erich Schweighofer: ICANN's policies should respect human rights ... but implementation may conflict with applicable law. Sad but reality, contradictions have to be solved by HR institutions. · Jorge: other areas of the FoI cover the obligation of ICANN to respect HR. · Markus: suggestion to refer to the OECD guidelines. 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’ · not discussed 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’ · not discussed 3. AOB · WIll continue this reading on the list and next week. · Action Items ACTION (Staff): follow-up with ICANN Legal - Karen: Answers will be provided next week.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Nov. 15, 2016

Nov. 15, 2016

7 6

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel, ID69431
by FedEx International Economy Nov. 9, 2016

Nov. 9, 2016

Hello, Your parcel has arrived at 10.11.2016. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you. Please, open email attachment to print shipment label. Tedra Rongstad - Area Manager FedEx , CA Thank you for choosing FedEx

1 0

Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
by parminder Nov. 9, 2016

Nov. 9, 2016

All I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN's US jurisdiction Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530 From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList <bestbits(a)lists.bestbits.net>, Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <forum(a)justnetcoalition.org> All As you know, the issue of jurisdiction of ICANN is under consideration at ICANN's community process (in the accountability track where there is a sub group discussing this issue). ICANN is currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, from 3rd to 9th November. Today, on the last day of ICANN's Hyderabad meeting, the enclosed statement was issued by key Indian civil society organisations engaged with Internet governance issues, supported by two key global networks involved in this area. The statement expresses the urgent need for transiting ICANN from being under the jurisdiction of one country, presenting the rationale of why this is important to do. It also lists some possible options of doing so, towards beginning a serious action-oriented deliberation on this very important matter. Unlike what is often understood, the jurisdiction issue is not just a matter of sovereign prestige and self respect of the states but concerns vital matters impacting people's rights. This is especially so as the society gets more and more digitised in all areas. We welcome comments and feedback. The statement has been issued by the following Indian civil society organisations. _Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>_, Bangalore _IT for Change <http://www.itforchange.net/>_, Bangalore _Free Software Movement of India <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Movement_of_India>_, Hyderabad _Society for Knowledge Commons <http://www.knowledgecommons.in/>_, New Delhi _Digital Empowerment Foundation <http://defindia.org/>_, New Delhi _Delhi Science Forum <http://www.delhiscienceforum.net/>_, New Delhi _Software Freedom Law Cent_er_ India_, New Delhi _Third World Network - India <https://twnetwork.org/>_, New Delhi It is supported by the following global networks: _Association For Progressive Communications <https://www.apc.org/>_ _Just Net Coalition <http://justnetcoalition.org/>_ <http://justnetcoalition.org/> We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support. Best, Parminder _ <http://justnetcoalition.org/>_ _ <http://justnetcoalition.org/>_ _ <http://justnetcoalition.org/>_ _ <http://justnetcoalition.org/>_

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN57- FacetoFaceMeeting - open contracting policies
by Xavier J. Calvez Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

Sharing the email below with the entire CCWG-Accountability, for transparency, as the topic discussed is not directly related to the open contracting policies which I was responding to. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 -----Original Message----- From: Iftikhar Hussain Shah <gac1(a)moitt.gov.pk> Date: Monday, November 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN57- FacetoFaceMeeting - open contracting policies Dear Calvez Pakistan's viewpoint on the subject matter is as under: Enhancing ICANN Accountability : ICANN and its CCWG-Accountability should promote the governmental role in their future course of actions to safeguard the national interest. Regards Iftikhar Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:31 AM To: bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN57- FacetoFaceMeeting - open contracting policies Thank you Bruce to have shared the information and references below. In addition, relative to the competitive part of the procurement policy, you will find below the link to the page of ICANN.org where all Requests For Proposals (RFPs) conducted by ICANN in accordance with its procurement policy are posted. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 -----Original Message----- From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN57- FacetoFaceMeeting - open contracting policies Hello Christopher. >> 1. I do not have a relevant benchmark in the form of ICANN's existing procurement policies. It is quite normal for such entities whether in the private or public sectors to have an open, pro-competitive procurement policy. I assume that there is something in ICANN that responds to this expectation, but I do not know about it. ICANN's current procurement guidelines are available at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… I have attached for your convenience. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0