December 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

HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 8, 2017

Jan. 8, 2017

Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 11

The crusade for clarity continues
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I've been called a "crusader." (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting "US jurisdiction as such," I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.

7 9

TR: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 30, 2016

Dec. 30, 2016

Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary. Best Mathieu De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37 À : Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; acct-staff(a)icann.org Objet : Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results Co-Chairs and Staff: The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup. The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions. These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion. Greg

22 88

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
by Olawale Bakare Dec. 29, 2016

Dec. 29, 2016

Hi Milton, I wouldn't want to be absolutely sure that your response to Parminder was meant for jurisdiction subgroup. Regards, Wale On 29 Dec 2016 21:54, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: Parminder said “I havent seen not only no attempt to explore ways to stop such influence by you, and many others here Translated, it means: I just wanted to know what do you propose to do about this clearly identified jurisdiction problem? MM: First, it isn’t all that clearly identified. Other than OFAC, we need to explore the scenarios, if any, in which it might have impact. The current Q4, as I have said, does a lousy job of this. PS: Further, if going down an international treaty route is problematic for you, do you think jurisdictional immunity under the International Organisations Immunities Act is a good way to address this jurisdictional problem? MM: International treaty would take decades, and given the irrationality of inter-state rivalries, seems unlikely ever to produce a good solution. MM: The IOIA isn’t all that promising, keep in mind that to qualify as an “international organization” under that Act the US Congress has to recognize the organization as such and thus you would be bringing ICANN back under the authority of the US congress, which doesn’t seem so nice after the Republican takeover and our experiences last September. Indeed, the IOIA was designed with state-based, diplomatic organizations in mind – it applies to the UN, the Holy See and the European Central Bank for example. So your holding up of this option is what drives Corwin’s sense that this debate is about whether ICANN turns into an IGO. Finally, the exemptions of the IOIA confer all kinds of immunities on the organization that we might not want, such as exemptions from property and income taxes (I know you are a big fan of those) and worse, immunity from lawsuits. Are you kidding me? You want ICANN to be immune from lawsuits? _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-IRPIOT-NewSupplementaryRules-PublicConsultation Close of public consultation extended to 25 January 2017
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

All, *The **Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP) comment period (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp-procedures-2016-11-28-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp-procedures-2016-11-28-en> ) has been extended to the new Close Date of January 25, 2017, at 23:59 UTC.* *Originally scheduled to close following a 42-day period on January 10, 2017, this extension is to afford additional time in light of the holiday period in the middle of the comment period and the important nature of these updated supplementary procedures to the IRP process.* Bernard Turcotte

1 0

Clarification about Greg's response
by Seun Ojedeji Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs, I figured I should create a new thread for my question to avoid any mis-understanding as my question is not in response to any of the 4 "jurisdiction questions" but a clarification on scope of the jurisdiction sub-group with respect to the WS1 proposal. I look forward to Greg's response. Regards On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Co-Chairs, > > As a follow-up to my question on the call and based on Greg's response > which I think may be beyond the jurisdiction scope as stipulated in the WS1 > proposal. I like to get further clarity for the record. > > Let me re-state my question again: "is change of ICANN's current > jurisdiction of incorporation open for debate within WS2 hence can be an(or > one of the) outcome from the jurisdiction sub-group"? > > Greg's Response was "somewhat yes" - if there is an issue that warrants it > then it will be recommended. > > While I have no problem leaving such option open for discussion in future > (perhaps by other group even though it's been discussed significantly in > the past), and ofcourse the actions of the new US govt could trigger such > need especially if the ICANN Board is convinced as such but that is not the > case as as today. > > I am concerned that the sub-group on jurisdiction seem to imply place of > incorporation is within their scope hence may probably be expending > resources on that discussion point. Resources which includes volunteer time > and most importantly legal working hours which isn't cheap from experience > ;-). In addition, the unnecessary tension(most importantly the political > ones) that this would create cannot be under estimated - ICANN just had a > major structural reform and should be given time to settle and live a > normal life for once ;-). > > I will appreciate if Greg could confirm whether i have parsed his response > accurately and also provide reference to appropriate section of WS1 > proposal to support his response. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 14 Dec 2016 08:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached >> two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Mathieu >> >> >> >> *De :* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >> *Envoyé :* mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37 >> *À :* Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; >> acct-staff(a)icann.org >> *Objet :* Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results >> >> >> >> Co-Chairs and Staff: >> >> >> >> The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. >> The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the >> questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup. >> >> >> >> The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup >> to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions. >> >> >> >> These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

2 2

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 14 | 19 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #14 – 19 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZpTDAw 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: No changes to SOIs. 2. Questionnaire a. Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary b. Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions Greg Shatan: Unfortunate Parminder is not on call. He had asked for an annex to the preamble to be the full Annex 12. Milton Mueller: Not in favour of modifying preamble. Propose we simplify vs expand the preamble. Propose we delete everything after the second paragraph. avri doria: whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit their hoped for outcome. but the answers take time. better we have people willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: We can simplify and include a link to the relevant part of Annex 12 Milton Mueller: People need to understand the questions, Avri avri doria: inclusion of 12 by reference is ok. Milton Mueller: And some of them won't even read the questions if they have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook Kavouss Arasteh: Have no problem with shortened preamble - but simply add hyperlink to Annex 12. Greg Shatan: So the proposal is to take the first two paras, add the link and then fix the last para. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Makes sense, what Greg just summarized avri doria: it is less than a page, that is not long. David McAuley: As the drafter of the preamble not unsympathetic to shortening. avri doria: take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page. Milton Mueller: Right Greg David McAuley (RySG): OK Greg Shatan: cut Further Background and Specifically it would be short - do we need TO HELP? I think the last para is useful. Kavouss Arasteh: Last para needs to stay. avri doria: do not remove that para. please Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on last paragraph - go with those edits Greg Avri Doria: SPECIFICALLY para is important. Greg Shatan: really need to condense the first three paras. any objections? (none). Let us move on to the first question. Kavouss Arasteh: Propose to delete Business and Privacy and as JN proposed in the plenary remove RELATED SERVICES. Greg Shatan: Any comments? (none) Greg Shatan: Proposal Have your activities related to domain name services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? Kavouss Arasteh: domain name system or servicees? Willing to be corrected. David McAuley (RySG): DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN services than ICANN deals with Jeff Neuman: DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not related to ICANN Milton Muller: We can qualify DNS later. We are interested in any effect of ICANN's jurisdiction on DN Services - you cannot buy DNSystem. Greg Shatan: "domain name-related services"? to avoid confusion with managed DNS services etc. Kavouss Arasteh 2: what is DNS services pls? Milton Mueller: domain name-related services is ok with me Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Christopher Wilkinson: support keeping Business and Privacy in question 1. Kavouss Arasteh: Services/Systems is used in other for a – could solve the problem here? David McAuley: Need to focus it on ICANN related services etc. could be fixed in intro. Greg Shatan: other comments? (none) 1 for changing, 1 against...any further comments. Temperature check 3 and 3 so no consensus. Milton Mueller: I am against changing it Kavouss Arasteh 2: then other people would be against what was in the initial text. Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts again any comments Greg Shatan: new temperature check Kavouss Arasteh 2: I object to the initial text Greg Shatan: will republish the first question to the list. Second question (no comment). third question, comments? (none). David McAuley (RySG): 2 seems ok Greg Shatan: Question 4. Much discussion on the list regarding this. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems." avri doria: looks good Philip Corwin 2: +1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 to Phil :D Kavouss Arasteh: issue with Q3. Greg Shatan: Q3 was added to allow people to submit other people/business/countries experiences if documented. Kavouss Arasteh 2: I am not convinced by Q3 objectives avri doria: we are worried about people answering one questionnaire. Now we want to send them two? Greg Shatan: Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? Greg Shatan: This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate suggestion. Milton Mueller: I am opposed to Q4 in this questionnaire - could be sent independently later (Explaining rationale for this) Kavouss Arasteh: not convinced on question 3. Worried it has not meaning. Greg Shatan: needs to be verifiable. Kavouss Arateh: do not agree. Erich Schweighofer: Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will ignore it. David McAuley (RySG): I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder can simply say that the report is verifiable. Paul McGrady 2: I tend to agree with Kavouss. Q3 has little real value since it is just gathering hears Avri Doria: Support Q3 for secondary sources. Requires more work in analysis but still very useful. David McAuley (RySG): Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the work of verification? Wale Bakare: Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge. Milton Mueller: those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking opportunities Kavouss Arasteh: still do not support Q3 - cannot get comments from experiences who are not your own. Christopher Wilkinson: Understand the concern about Q3 vs validation. But still could be useful. Would prefer not to have hearsay. Greg Shatan: Need to focus Q3 to get valid information. Paul McGrady 2: We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that don't fit though. Wale Bakare: IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could be sourced from as well. Milton Mueller: of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual reports or information we toss it out. Avri Doria: needs to be there. This could be the factual basis to lead to other discussions. Milton Mueller: we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: agree with Avri... as said before Phil Corwin's formulation could work (many people leaving for other call) Kavouss Arasteh: need Q4 but can be re-edited. Greg Shatan: KA are you ok with PC edits. Erich Schweighofer: I support the revised version. David McAuley (RySG): I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4. Milton Meuller: Q4 should be reformulated and not sent at the same time - but if we have to send it the PC version is ok. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Let's go with Phill's version if everyone can live with this Kavouss Arasteh 3: I do not agreee David with that version Greg Shatan: I will put these options out on the list. Adjourned c. Question 4 i. Can this question be revised to get broader support? ii. Should this question be sent separately? d. Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG Plenary 3. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process a. How to publish/send out questionnaire b. How to collect responses 4. Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps 5. AOB 6. Adjourn

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #7 | 20 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Diversity Subgroup, Meeting #7 - 20 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/85fDAw A copy of the notes from the meeting are below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Roll Call * Roll call will be taken from the AC room. 2. Review of Actions items * Action items are listed on the Diversity wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Diversity * Data collection: action item still in progress * Call for volunteers: we received 2 responses * Straw man document: more dicussions needed 3. Discussion Topics- third reading of second version of strawman document * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XpXaGckf9IIYGgPKdMhBgKe8gzwruuCHgvXiz-D… * Fiona gave a summary of the elements discussed in previous meetings * Fiona: one topic I'd like to focus on is the diversity of ICANN staff * Rafik: we can organize a meeting with ICANN staff within the next month to discuss the diversity data they collect. * Rafik: on gender, we should not be limiting. * Should we cover PTI as well in terms of diversity? * Sebastien: diversity should be taken into account all around, PTI, CSC, review teams etc. It was in the WS1 document. * Rafik: it may be good to highlight the different entities / structures to make it clear. * Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: We should seek a better balance between all languages. I therefore suggest that point 2.2 is worded in the following way: 2.2 Language: All languages should be represented in ICANN as much as possible if the organization is to position itself as a global multi-stakeholder entity. There is a need for a better balance between all languages , including the seven official languages at ICANN - English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Russian. With ICANN managing the IANA functions that offers IDN services to entities who do not use any of the 7 official languages it is important that ICANN improves on way of communicating to this group of stakeholders * Lito Ibarra: When talking about collecting data regarding aspects such as age or physical ability, should we consider any privacy concerns? * Sebastien: as an example, I couldn't find any data regarding the age of ICANN board members. It would be good to know this information. * Rafik: we can start by finding out what data is available, and then we can see if we want to add to that. It may raise privacy issues, we'll have to keep that in mind. * Rachel Pollack: @Rafik, yes, data collection rules vary significantly by country. For example, in France, one cannot collect ethnic statistics * Rachel Pollack: Should we mention ICANN's commitment to multi-lingualism To clarify, I just meant that ICANN has often portrayed IDNs as an effort to promote multilingualism and a multi-lingual Internet. For example: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/collaborating-towards-a-truly-multilingual-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> * https://www.icann.org/news/blog/celebrating-a-major-community-driven-milest…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> * RAHMOUNI: for the multi-lingualism, we can also inspire our doucment from the work of the UNESCO * Rachel Pollack: @Rahmouni, this might have some helpful information: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowle…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_c…>/ * RAHMOUNI: many examples are avaible http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowle…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_c…>/ * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: this doc has a few more additions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XpXaGckf9IIYGgPKdMhBgKe8gzwruuCHgvXiz-D…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…># * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: regarding multilingualism maybe some data on the use of translation in meetings or use of interpreters? * Fiona: Regions vs geographical diversity. We need to define what we mean by region. * Sebastien: ICANN regions are different from the RIRs regions. ICANN has 5 regions. * Sebastien / Rafik: One other consideration: do you declare yourself based on where you live or where you come from? * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: perhaps consider icann regions as geographic and self-declared as regions 4- Review of Draft questionnaire * https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKSc… * Sebastien: we should try to limit the number of questions we raise * We should let SO/ACs decide who within their group should answer * Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: We should stick to questions that can be answered factually. Therefore, Question 3 should be deleted. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we should ask on both aspects (what they do themselves and what they expect from ICANN at large). Perhaps it should be more balanced. What do you understand under diversity and what do you do for it? And what do you expect in terms of diversity from ICANN at large? * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: rephrasing also the question on education for diversity, could ask how many materials, seminars or educational initiatives for diversity has so/ac produced * Avri: suggest limiting to questions 5 to 8. The other questions are more for this subgroup to answer. * Rachel Pollack: perhaps 5-8 could be seen as fact-finding part about the SO/AC, and then separate out a couple of questions more of a survey of views and ideas on diversity as a whole * Seun Ojedeji: Not sure question 8 is necessary as it would not be a fact since it isn't formal * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: q8 and others the so/ac has to come forward with info can all be merged into 1 question - what is being done about diversity in so/ac? * Renata Aquino Ribeiro: also rephrasing question 3 - what percentage of participation does so/ac has of developing and least developed countries * Rafik: We'll try to come up with a new version this week. Please make sure to enter all your comments in the document. 5. AOB

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 20 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #17 here; https://community.icann.org/x/n5TDAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc · No updates to SOI noted · No questions or comments on draft presented to the Plenary for reading. Very positive result · Working with standard drafting team, wondering if we should take a step back, and discuss our path forward. 2. Evaluation, or: reculer pour mieux sauter a. To what extend does our work entail recommendations for implementation? If so, how detailed should we be? Is this in our mandate or remit? b. Should we review the FoI in the light of the tension between annex 6 and 12) ? · Annex 6: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723827/Annex%2006%20-%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> · Annex 12: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723827/Annex%2012%20-%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): To sum up my thoughts on the pending assignements: with the FoI we have covered everything relevant to the interpretation. What is left are aspects of implementation: 1) what policies and frameworks do we need or do we need to improve; 2) how do we do this in a bottom-up and multistakeholder fashion; 3) how does this interact with existing and future policies and procedures; 4) how does this impact on GAC Advice; 5) what is the effect on ICANN operations. We have to decide how deep and far we can and want to get on these 5 topics... · David: I agree that the FoI is done, and we should discuss terms of implementation. · Paul: it seems to me that the FoI should be referred to as necessary by ICANN moving forward, and it's not for us to nail all the changes that it could imply. · Greg: we are not asked to implement the bylaw, in the ICANN sense of implementation. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we have to touch on the 5 left issues on a very general level, giving some guidance and recommendations on how we think that ICANN (the corporation and the community) should deal with these topics. Agree with Greg: we do not implement, we just give some guidance on how we think implementation should be tackled considering the 5 pending topics we have according to Annex 6 and 12. · Rudi Daniel: agree Greg....on providing signposts as within the framework of interpretation. · Kavouss Arasteh 4: We have done what we asked to do and there is no more works to be done · avri doria: if we have a question about our scope, why don’t we go back to the main group for an answer? · Anne Aikman: I agree with Avri. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We can go back to the CCWG Plenary with some idea on what we would prefer to do... · Greg: I agree we should maybe make recommendations or give options to the plenary on how we'd like to handle this, rather than ask an open question. · Niels proposes to draft an email for the CCWG plenary, explaining what we are struggling with and listing several scenarios to move forward. · Anne: would we use the rest of this call to discuss the content of this email? · Kavouss Arasteh 4: This group should not be engaged to reconciliating between annexes 6 and 12 · Niels: we have 3 options: 1) we are done 2) create a new document with the other elements that we should cover 3) providing examples and adding to the FoI · Greg: there is a 4th option: to test the FoI. · Anne: we could ask the plenary for examples if we were to pursue option 3). · Show of hands: 5-6 Participants agree with this approach. 3. AOB

1 0