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

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-IRPIOT-SupplementaryRules-PublicConsultation Reminder Public Consultation closes 10 January 2017
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

All, As the seasonal recess approaches a simple reminder that the IRP-IOT Public Consultation on the Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP) is ongoing and will close on 10 January 2017. It can be found at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp- procedures-2016-11-28-en Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for David McAuley Chair of the IRP-IOT.

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelFunding-ICANN58-FirstRoundApplications-Approvals
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

All, As agreed on our last plenary all 14 of the ICANN 58 CCWG-Accountability travel applications received by Mindnight UTC Sunday 18 December have been evaluated by the Co-Chairs. All applications have been approved and ICANN Travel is copied on this email and will be contacting those applicants. This information will be posted on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 website later today. Applications for the second and final round of travel funding to ICANN 58 will close on 23:59 UTC Sunday 8 January 2017 and will be evaluated by Friday 13 January 2017. Name Chartering Org Appointed Member? WS2 Rapporteur? Full (air,2 hotel, 2 perdiem) Airfaire Hotel (#days) Perdiem (# days) Greg Shatan No Jurisdiction 0 0 1 1 Sebastien Bachollet ALAC Ombudsman 0 0 1 1 Alan Greenberg ALAC No 0 0 1 1 Tijani Ben Jemaa ALAC No 0 0 1 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC SOAC Acct. 0 0 1 1 Leon Sanchez ALAC Co-Chair 0 0 1 1 Mathieu Weill ccNSO Co-Chair 0 0 2 2 Kavouss Arasteh GAC No 1 Olga Cavalli GAC No 1 Avri Doria No Staff Acct. 1 Michael Karanicolas No Transparency 1 Robin Gross gNSO No 1 Farzaneh Badii No SOAC Acct. 1 Thomas Rickert Yes Co-Chair 1 6 6 Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability

6 5

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #13 | 19 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 19, 2016

Dec. 19, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #13 - 19 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/B5vDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome - Opening Remarks * Roll call will be taken from the AC room. * No participants on audio only. * Sebastien walked through the agenda. * Around 6 participants on the call only out of 22 signed-up, not optimal. External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office * Asking ICANN staff to provide an update on the status of the external review * Lars Hoffman will provide the update. Lars is an ICANN employee, part of MSSI (multistakeholder strategy and strategic initiatives) and works on reviews. * Lars walks the group through the draft RFP (Request for Proposal) that was prepared by ICANN staff. * Larisa Gurnick: The document has been drafted by staff, based on the key elements discussed with the subgroup at the last call, with inputs from both ATRT2 and WS1 and our group. * Farzaneh Badii: Larisa that is not enough. SO/ACs should be informed. * Farzaneh Badii: can we make changes to this? or is it final? * Larisa Gurnick: It is very much a draft, and will be handed over to the subgroup for your input and suggestions. * Sebastien: We will have a draft in a few days, that the subgroup will be able to review and amend. We won't have a lot of time, we don't want to be bottleneck for the whole WS2 work. * Farzaneh Badii: how long do we have to make comments on this? * Farzaneh Badii: who is going to decide which individuals are relevant to interview? * Herb: I thought the review was more an evaluation of how the community fits into the ombuds office. * Farzaneh: on the scope of work: the review should also focus on how the office is designed. We have to use caution when reviewing best practices. Ombuds office at ICANN is quite different from other industries (often limited to employees disputes). The reviewer has to understand the difference of ICANN with other corporations. About one-on-one interviews: we should ask SO/ACs about this. * Lars: we would encourage this subgroup to help us identify which individuals should be interviewed during the review. * Klaus: We should use the review time to include the points that need to be clarified, to not leave too much room for interpretation. * Sebastien: there are parts of the document that we worked on a few weeks ago that we could include in this RFP. * Sebatien: let's try to give our initial feedback by Friday, Dec 23. ICANN staff will ultimately pick the reviewer. Sebastien invites participants to review last call's presentation to understand the whole process. * Last week's presentation can be found here under Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/dZjDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> How to organize our team? * Sebastien suggests having a small group to follow external review of the IOO, including: Sebastien, Farzaneh, Avri, Cheryl, Alberto, Klaus, Herb, Asha. * Asha Hemrajani: Thank you Seb. I will be happy to follow the work of the group but as a board liaison my main role is liaising and observation. The community needs to drive the work. Other tasks that - Need to be delay after receiving the external review report - Can be handle in // Sebastien will resend to the group the structure that was discussed for the final report, so that the group can identify what should be delayed and what can be handled in parallel, and this can be discussed in our next meeting. Sebastien identified portions of the Transparency report that refer to the Ombudsman's office. He will send these to the list, and asks the subgroup to review these elements and provide feedback on the mailing list. Calendar - Next meetings * #14 Monday Jan 9, 2017 13:00UTC * Skipping one week after that due to Chinese new year. After that we will resume weekly meetings. * Iranian new year is on 21 March * Asha Hemrajani: Would it be possible to change the 9th Jan meeting to 10th Jan? Chinese new year is not till the end of January, there is no reason to skip the week of Jan 16th. AOB * Herb: what are the next steps? the group will receive the draft RFP to review via the mailing list? does the small group need to have a call? if so, when would that be? * Sebastien: goal is to receive a draft from staff by Wednesday, and to provide initial feedback by Friday. * Asha: there is already a timeframe drafted for the RFP. We should build up on that.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 13 | 13 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13 – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw 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 portions of the chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs. 2. Poll on Proposed Questions Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support. Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen. Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later. Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions. Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus? David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs? Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue). Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide. Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY. Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process. Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary. Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is. Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea 3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions) David McAuley: Presentation of draft. Greg Shatan: Comments? Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: In this regard, the subgroup is asking for concrete, factual submissions (positive, negative, or neutral) that will help ensure that the subgroup’s deliberations are informed, fact-based, and address real issues. The subgroup is interested in all types of jurisdiction-related factual experiences, not just those involving actual disputes/court cases. Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections? Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question). Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW. David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat. Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM. avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll. 4. Review by CCWG Plenary (discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary) 5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process a. How to publish/send out questionnaire Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts? David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire). avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere? Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it. Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1! Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important. avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that. David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete. Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov, Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts. Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred. David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends. Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid. Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc. Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document. Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers. David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge. David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.

3 3

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #6 | 15 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Transparency Subgroup, Meeting #6 - 15 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-xK4Aw A copy of the notes from the meeting are below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ NOTES 1. Roll Call 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks Michael Karanicolas: Will go directly to document. 3. Discussion of ICANN CCWG - Transparency Report WS2 - DRAFT Michael Karanicolas: Review of new version of draft. David McAuley: thanks for drafting - a lot of good in this. A few concerns - would encourage us to encourage ICANN to get involved early (vs WS1). Non-disclosure - nothing should upset an existing NDA - if there is going to be a public interest override then the NDA should note this if it is subject to this. Disclosure of Board vs IRP - would this really qualify under the IRP Bylaws as written. Michael Karanicolas: re ICANN good. NDA robust disclosure discussed in Hyderabad - much support for opening up contracting rules. As to applying it retroactively that is problematic and should not be done as it would not be fair. As such it is currently worded that current NDAs should not be modified. Re IRP vs references - however we do not need a new enforcement/review mechanism for this. David McAuley: IRP - agree we should not have another dispute resolution mechanism. However, they do not have to go IRP first - other choices such as the Ombudsman are available. However, we should not specify what is applicable to IRP, the Bylaws currently say what that is. Michael Karanicolas: Given the time constraints could we get your written comments earlier. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Wow hang on Team it's called building consensus not a deadline driven end game Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): no contract penalties for slipping a deadline here we don't get revisions for updates easier if we hand homework in on time Chris Wilson: looking to be on track1. Michael Karanicolas: any other comments on the draft? Chris Wilson: Maybe we could handle the CW comments made by email? Michael Karanicolas: Good idea. discussing budget considerations is beyond our remit however we should ensure we are not recommending things that are completely unreasonable. David McAuley (RySG): Budgeting could be handles by adding "reasonableness" to be judged ultimately by Ombudsman. Alan Greenberg: The Ombudsman makes recommendations and never decisions. About budgeting - a statement about reasonableness should be included in our recommendations. Transparency of the volunteer part of the organization but this falls to the SOACs David McAuley: Agree with AG. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Dissociate budget reasonableness vs anything to do with the Ombudsman - as I believe no Ombudsman would accept to do this. Michael Karanicolas: Sounds like we include a reasonableness statement but leave out any mention of the Ombudsman (general support). David McAuley: references to best effort or ASAP should be considered in context of reasonable costs. Michael Karanicolas: Reasonableness is about helping identify priorities. How about As Soon As Reasonably Possible. Any further comments? Vidushi Marda: Good draft. Support DIDP clauses about restrictions 7, 10 and 11. Uncertain the proposed replacement for 11 may not meet what we are trying to do. We should maybe be looking at asking ICANN to provide a reason why. Pro-Active disclosure we should add where they get their funding. Michael Karanicolas: Re Proactive disclosure - Given we initially removed the proactive disclosure I would be leery of adding it in again. What we could do is sturcture the access to information stuff to make it easier to get that information. Number 11 should be rephrased but understanding ICANN has commercial interests which cannot be compromized would appreciate a suggestion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Michael we need to be careful re our specific mandate within WS2... other work later may of course but should say build on our foundations Vidushi Marda 2: my analysis so far shows that as the most often used clause, and my concern is that the new amendment would not change much Vidushi Marda 2: I will do so in the next week? Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Important remark: ICANN per se does not have "commercial interests"; although some of its stakeholders do. I would avoid any expression tending to accredit the notion that ICANN is or should be a "commercial venture"... Jean-Jacques Subrenat: No, ICANN does not have "commercial interests". Philip Corwin: ICANN is non-profit, but not non-commercial Vidushi Marda 2: in order to define ICANN's commercial interests, we need to know where it gets we need to know where it gets its money from :) Philip Corwin: A third of a $billion in new gTLD application fees sure looks commercial David McAuley: Interesting discussion - JJS should make his point and let people think about it. Alan Greenberg: ICANN is not for profit but engages in a number of contracts such as renting office space - so I have no problem using this word. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, but the "commercial information" does not originate in, nor belong to ICANN. That belongs to the commercial interests of some stakeholders. I insist on this point, and would oppose the current wording. Vidushi Marda 2: reposting, just for the benefit of discussion: https://twitter.com/VidushiMarda/status/656041061278609408 Philip Corwin: If commercial is to be omitted what term is to replace it? Wale Bakare: The interest is about providing services but not-for-profit. The term commercial contextually may mean profit driven. My thought though. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Alan, ICANN renting space does not amount to "ICANN's commercial interests". It's simply part of their necessity to function. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, "the commercial interests of its stakeholders who have those interests". Michael Karanicolas: Commercial interest of its stakeholders? Jean-Jacques Subrenat: of SOME of its stakeholders. Alan can confirm, inter alia, that ALAC does not have commercial interests... Micahael Karanicolas: is this acceptable Cheryl Langdon-Orr: "some" vs those who do. Ricardo Holmquist: if you put some, and I understand ALAC does not have, it only causes controversy Vidushi Marda 2: Can we have some time to think about wording? maybe on list? Vidushi Marda 2: we might be benefitting some interests David McAuley (RySG): Since this is about paragraph 11 I remain of view stated earlier regarding NDAs. Michael Karanicolas. Can we ask for people to submit their suggestions in the next few days? Philip Corwin: ICANN enters into enforceable legal agreements with contracted parties from which it derives tens of $millions in fees. How can that not be regarded as commercial arrangements in furtherance of its non-profit purposes? Wale Bakare: "Some" carries maybe 70% of Michael Karanicolas: Any other comments? Any comments on Board deliberations? (none). David McAuley: My comments will include a number of questions about clarifications - eg we mention Human Rights in several places but this should not impact the work of that group or the Bylaws on this. Michael Karanicolas: any other comments? (None) Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #13 | 09 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #13 - 09 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/dZjDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ NOTES 14 participants + 4 staff at start of call. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome - Opening Remarks Sebastien Bachollet: we have not met for a while as we were trying to get all the required staff to attend. Any comments on agenda? (none). This call will focus on the review of the Ombuds office. External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office Discussion with legal staff Sebastien Bachollet: Review of question to ICANN Legal regarding the participation of the current Ombudsman. Reply does not beleive there is a conflict of interest (see answer from legal committee for details). LC suggests this may be more a policy question and suggest posting this to the plenary. Questions comments? Herb Waye: See myself as a resource and will only participate when called on. Chris LaHatte: I dont consider that I have any conflict of inteest in any event as I am not being paid by ICANN or anyone at all for participating Sebastien Bachollet: We will not raise the question with the plenary as we are satisfied with the answer from ICANN Legal - any comments? (None). Discussion with procurement staff Larisa Gurnick: Introduction of review staff (Lars Hoffmann, Charla Shambley, Vivek SenGupta) that will be involved. Review of slides. LH will present our process in detail> Lars Hoffmann: Presentation of slides (Scope of Work (RFP), Work Methods, Deliverables, Candidate Evaluation Criteria. Vivek SenGupta - Director Procurement: Presentation of Lefecycle of ICANN RFP Process slides. Lars Hoffmann: Proposed Roadmap for Assessment of ICANN's Ombudsman Office - looking at conducting assessment in March-April. Roles and responsibilities. Discussion with "reviews" staff Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you for presentations - questions? Asha Hemrajani: Based on your past experience what do you expect this would cost (ball park). Second question are there companies that do these types of reviews or are we thinking of using consultancies we have used for other reviews. Larisa Gurnick: Initial budget is based on prior experience. As to who would be qualified - we are in no way restricting it to anyone. All suggestions of qualified orgs. would be appreciated so we can ensure they get the RFP. Alberto Soto: Is very expensive...Is there a pre-bid? Larisa Gurnick: An important part of our evaluation is to assess the value of each proposal and keep the costs under control. Larisa Gurnick: @aberto - can you please clarify what you meant by pre-bid? Asha Hemrajani: I guess Alberto may be talking about a pre-qualification phase Alberto Soto: Yes, is it a direct contracting? Vivek SenGupta: @alberto in the interest of time we will not have a pre-bid phase. We use the Initial Evaluation process to assess all bids, and then move forward those bids that are feasible ...to the Detailed Evaluation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the ALAC Review WP is 23 members Vivek SenGupta: we do not advertise the budget in the RFP at all for obvious reasons, so we look at all bids Alberto Soto: Ok, tnanks Vivek SenGupta: @alberto it is not direct contracting i.e. we do require a comprehensive proposal to be submitted by the respondents, including detailed documents that will be asked for Larisa Gurnick: Sebastian - thank you very much for drawing attention to this point Asha Hemrajani: Good answer looking forward to making this open to all. Asha Hemrajani: @Chris I like the idea of advertising to get wider choice of candidate companies, but with a tight control on costs. Chris LaHatte: There are some blogs and sites where ombuds hang out So advertising costs will be minimal Larisa Gurnick: sure, absolutely Karen Mulberry: We can make sure that the Subgroup receives the RFP announcement so it can be circulated out to a broader group of experts Sebastien Bachollet: To meet the schedule of getting the RFP ready we will have to work intensively to meet the January deadline. When will you need our input and what size of group to you require to help you get this done? Lars Hoffmann: This group will need to get some work done prior to the RFP being let. We would send you a first draft of the RFP to get you started. We could then work with you as best suits you (another meeting, red-line documents etc.). As to timing you will probably have a better idea once you see our first draft. We hope to get something to you for the middle of next week. On the size of the group we have no comment and do not see it as an issue - this is up to you. Asha Hemrajani: Most important aspect of this review is to have a good list of deliverables (garbage in, garbage out). This group needs to spend the required time to have good deliverables. Sebastien Bachollet: budget discussions should be kept confidential. As to the scope of work - I seem to remember the definition of this work in ATRT2 being different - we need to see both. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: This will my third review party - just want to emphasize the quality and professionalism of the ICANN Team for RFP's and the Reviews. Larisa Gurnick: What CLO was referring to were different - this is an independent assessment as it is not mandated by the Bylaws - so similar but not the same. Connection between ATRT2 and this - those recommendations were made at the end of 2013 - but a lot has changed since then - so these could be a good starting point but we may need to update to get the best results. Sebastien Bachollet: We may need to update it but we have to say this is what we are starting with. Asha Hemrajani: Good distinction Larisa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would however expect similar and similarly professional processes Larisa Herb Waye Ombuds: I'm sure the RFP for the ATRT 2 review can be used as a starting point. If the reveiw will be similar. How to organize our team? Sebastien Bachollet: would recommend we set up a small core team for the RFP given low participation. We can decide this on our next call. Prep of the next WS2 plenary (Dec 14, 2016) Sebastien Bachollet: presentation of update to be made to plenary. Calendar Sebastien Bachollet: please review the proposed schedule of calls going forward and avise if there are issues. Next meeting #14 0500 Monday Dec 19, 2016 AOB (none) Sebastien Bachollet: Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6_ 15 December 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6 – 15 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GJTDAw A copy of the 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 portions of the chat) 1. Intro, agenda review, SOI check Avri Doria: Proposed agenda - accepted. SOI check - no changes. Still awaiting documents from staff as agreed in Hyderabad. 2. Review of 'proposed next steps" Avri Doria: Presentation of Proposed Next Steps document. JC and I have advised the co-chairs that we will now be on track 2 (longer track). Discussion of 2 documents A and B. George Sadowsky: Issue of Board relationship of the Board with staff and the community is beyond the scope of this group (descriptive only instead of prescriptive). Avri Doria: Agree - if we ever notice anything in this area we would note it without making a recommendations. Klaus Stoll: good plan as long as we do not see this outline as absolute - will be glad to participate. Avri Doria: JC will be the pen holder on document A. There may be others. On to document B which I will initially hold the pen on. Description of B - expected to be a longer document - maybe 20 pages - any comments? George Sadowsky: Not all of the CCWG-Accountability? AD - from the WS1 recommendation but we are delegated by the CCWG to do this. GS also ICANN org and ICANN Board. AD - again but can add a footnote. Avri Doria: any other comments? (none). Seems acceptable. Next questions - Specifications? (no comment). Need volunteers for the documents. Review of schedule going forward - there are no additional calls this year and resume 5 January - description of schedule/plan in document. We need to get the draft done over the holidays and early January. Comments? (none). Who is volunteering? Klaus Stoll: These documents will be based on existing documents - have we captured all of these in one place to facilitate our drafting? Avri Doria: As noted earlier we are still waiting on staff to provide those - but we have to move ahead with what we have given the schedules. Klaus Stoll: Should ask staff to expedite - this is very important. Georgee Sadowsky: Support what Klaus is saying. Karen Mulberry: I have been told that it is being worked on and that it should be sent soon Pam Little: Can we ask Staff to send whatever they have now? Pam Little: Instead of waiting for everything. Karen Mulberry: Sorry, best i can do Karen Mulberry: Its my understanding that they are responding to all questions Avri Doria: Still looking for contributors to the documents. Ideally need a core group of 3 or 4 writers per document (none except KS). Alan Greenberg: I will put time into reviewing once something is drafted, but volunteering to do the work is less realistic. Avri Doria: AOB? (none0 Document B can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnkJuukv0px-CfIDgLrjdDZa2CpBvSahPvAXdYY… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Adjourned.

2 1

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #10 | 14 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #10 – 14 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/nJTDAw A copy of the 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. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior Thomas Rickert: Introduction, SOIs , audio only GS, MK, SO, BO. Farzaneh Badii: Have changed affiliation given I have completed by PhD and I have joined the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech and will start in January. 2. Administration • Timeline avri doria: Staff Acct is not going to make that schedule (Track 2) Chris Wilson: transparency might • IRP-IOT Public Consultation • ATRT3 Letter to SO/ACs • Funding for ICANN 58 Bernard Turcotte: due to a miss-communication with ICANN Travel we are late in providing the names of our supported travellers to them. As such the co-chairs will evaluate and approve a first batch of applications as of Monday 19 December and confirm those to ICANN Travel by Wednesday 21 December. All other application will be reviewed as per the originally proposed dates. 3. Legal Committee • Review of Requests Leon Sanchez: There are no outstanding requests as we have reciev ed replies to the HR questions a few hours ago. • Process for requests from IRP-IOT Leon Sanchez: review of process for the IRP-IOT making requests of external legal counsel. David McAuley: (Background on IRP-IOT asking for legal advice) Going forward the IRP IOT Rapporteur can access outside counsel directly, keeping ICANN Legal and the PCST informed of these requests. Malcolm Hutty: want to ensure Holly and Rosemary will continue to advise the IRPIOT directly. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Completely agree with Malcolm. Leon Sachez: you will not lose this ability. The Chair concludes that moving forward the IRP IOT Rapporteur can access outside counsel directly, keeping ICANN Legal and the PCST informed of these requests. 4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • IGF Steve DelBianco: (no document) A number of sessions related to ICANN work and CCWG-Accountability. These were noted as a good example of multi-stakeholder model at work. Govts grateful and amazed that the IANA contract was allowed to lapse. Should generate more participation in the ICANN multistakeholder process. Thomas Rickert: any other views? Also want to thank AD for her efforts at the IGF vs our work. No other comments. • Ombudsman Sebastien Bachollet: (2 slides) External Review process now underway. currently working out the schedule of the work. May not complete by July 2017. • SO/AC accountability Steve DelBianco: (dashboard slide) Have made significant progress - we have 3 tracks - 1 awaiting replies to questionnaire. Track 2 and 3 we have preliminary conclusions which we will be reviewing on our group call tomorrow. Kavouss Arasteh: time to reply has passed. How many replies were received by deadline and how long this will be extended. Can we have an explanation of how replies will be analyzed. Steve DelBianco: gNSO sub-groups will be providing individual replies given they have separate charters. Process for analysis will be discussed on our sub-group call tomorrow. • Diversity Rafik Dammak: continuing to develop our document and questionnaire so we can obtain plenary feedback on which areas of diversity they consider important. working on identifying sources of information on diversity. • Jurisdiction (review of questions) Greg Shatan: (display of preamble and questions document). Trying to get evidence of issues surrounding jurisdiction. We have added a fourth question which has been under discussion by the group. Reading of document so this could be a first reading. Kavouss Arasteh: who will reply to this - if it does not properly represent the global multi-stakeholder community the results cannot be valid. Mathieu Weill: Responses we receive need to be analyzed carefully and not claim representativeness if there is none - but this is the nature of this process and we have experience in this. Seun Ojedeji: Is ICANN state of incorporation open for discussion or not? Megan Richards: is it not our responsibility to do outreach to get widest possible response? then responses will of. course be assessed based on source David McAuley (RySG): Agree that it will be quite hard to weigh replies in this unscientific survey, especially how to weigh opinions that might be posted. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: It is, Megan I agree. No survey can be perfectly exhaustive Greg Shatan: In response to Kavous a majority of Jurisdiction participants are non-US based. turning to questions. Jeff Neuman: What is a "DNS-related service". Most DNS services have NOTHING to do with ICANN Chris Disspain: Jeff + 1 Farzaneh Badii: well Jeff if their contract with ICANN affect their policies in providing service for the users then it has something to do with ICANN. Greg Shatan:(reading of questions fom document). Chris Disspain: who are we intending to ask these questions? Greg Shatan: As large a group as possible. but not a public comment. Chris Disspain: so how can we be sure that responders understand what ICANN's role is and are not answering the questions from a wrong basis? Jeff Neuman: the only DNS providers that are under contract with ICANN are those that happen to also be registries or registrars....and even those do not have their managed DNS services regulated by ICANN Farzaneh Badii: Jeff, some registries and registrars, sometimes presume that they have to apply OFAC even when not based in the US. registries and registrars should be briefed they don't have to apply OFAC regulations Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Jeff, I noted your question as well Farzaneh Badii: I am hoping that with this exercise we can clarify jurisdictional confusions. not to change ICANN's jurisdiction Nathalie Vergnolle: On behalf of Jorge Cancio: "I apologize for not being able to attend today’s call due to other prior engagements. Let me add that I’m in support of sending out all 4 questions prepared in the Jurisdiction Group. I feel that at this point of our discussions, where we are trying to gather as many facts, experiences and reasoned opinions as possible which are relevant for the influence that ICANN’s jurisdiction has on its operations and accountability mechanisms, we should not rule out questions (as question nr. 4) that have been considered important by an important part of the Subgroup (in fact, by a slight majority of it).At later stages we may determine whether ingoing responses regarding that question are factual or are mere opinions without a well-founded basis. At this moment I think that excluding relevant questions could give rise to wrong perceptions and could potentially prevent us from knowing relevant experiences/assessments covered only by question nr. Seun Ojedeji: Did not get answer to my question. Greg Shatan: potentially yes. Group methodology is to identify issues and then look for remedies. If there is an issue that requires this remedy, then we would consider it. Kavouss Arasteh: First question - should not mention business or privacy. Farzaneh Badii: thank you Kavouss :) talking for non-commercial users Jeff Neuman: Why do we say DNS-related services? Why not just domain names? Farzaneh Badii: I agree with you Jeff Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: +1 Jeff Farzaneh Badii: Domain name is a better term. DNS is too broad Greg Shatan: these are OR based so essentially asking 3 questions. As to DNS - used in colloquial sense - not as managed DNS - but rather as the domain name system in general. Kavouss Arasteh: We should remain general Jeff Neuman: Most purchasers of DNS related services have no clue who ICANN is Farzaneh Badii: but DNS could mean RIRs too ... but we are not talking about them Wale Bakare: Domain names may be too complex but DNS is like targeting ICANN's customers directly. Domain names - end users generally, i think David McAuley: I think this questionnaire is a mistaken effort. We should be focusing on contract disputes vs jurisdiction. WS2 is not the appropriate place to look into ICANN state of incorporation. Kavouss Arasteh: David the entire 4 questions are package avri doria: on the other hand a lot of others do think that WS2 is the only time to start dealing with these issues. Farzaneh Badii: @David, where should we discuss these issues? Kavouss Arasteh: All or none Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: that binary makes no sense Steve DelBianco: +1 Robin Kavouss Arasteh: Yes, it make sense David McAuley (RySG): Farzi, not sure, but believe that WS2 is not the place. As a place to start the larger discussion, my concern is WS2 timeframe among others Farzaneh Badii: yeah time frame is too short I agree. But I fear that if we don't discuss now we never discuss. Mathieu Weill: We have gone as far as we can go today on this topic. We will come back to this at our next meeting. Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu , we need advice to the sub group that chair must maintain its neutrality and just conduct the meeting and therefore not to insist on his views and his colleagues views. Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Kavouss - that is not right Kavouss Arasteh: Yes Finn ,I am aware of your views on the entire process and you do not need to repeat it Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Kavouss - sorry - I think that your views are also known :) Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Kavouss, all : let's now focus on HR please. Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls let us not say who is right and who is not right Kavouss Arasteh: Finn , you may not be aware of problems of others regarding jurisdiction as Denmark has no problem with US jurisdiction unconditionally apply to every case Kavouss Arasteh: Pls then, let us express our views and kindly no say whether we are right or wrong. We are what we are Greg Shatan: I'll note to the chat that on the jurisdiction questions, these are being put forth for individual review, discussion and approval by the CCWG Plenary. There was no discussion in the subgroup of putting them forward as a package. Kavouss Arasteh: We discuss every thing, nothing agreed until every thing is agreed Greg Shatan: Kavouss, I agree that the plenary should have a free and open discussion, without preconditions. Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu, Thomas, Leon, Kavouss Arasteh: If Greg insist to to accept the logic of the importance of Q4, we have serious difficulties at the next step Kavouss Arasteh: to not accept Greg Shatan: Kavouss, I have only reported the levels of support for each question. The conclusions about those levels, and the conclusions of the plenary, are not mine to make. Kavouss Arasteh: But the concept of Q 4 is important and you implictly rejecting the q4 • Human rights (first reading) Greg Shatan: reading of document. Tatiana Tropina: continue reading document. Leon Sanchez: Any comments? David McAuley: re applicable law - should be clear as read. Leon Sanchez: This concludes the first reading of this document with no major modifications. Kavouss Arasteh: Can we do second reading now? Leon Sanchez: Good suggestion but we have a process which we should respect. Tatiana Tropina: would be good if anyone who has comments submits them via email list avri doria: agree with respecting interval to discuss between readings. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed +1 Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Kudos to the HR subgroup, Niels and the drafting team! Outstanding work • Transparency (first reading) Thomas Rickert:Let us move on to the this revised transparency document. Michael Karanicholas: review of major changes - Whistleblower and interactions with govts are essentially the same. Format of document has been updated. Transparency vs Board deliberations - ability to exclude input as what is essentially a discretionary decision - new text here - DIDP a few additions. Included some language on open contracting - not retroactive. Narrowing scope of client-attorney privilege - in Hyderabad ICANN legal said they would be open to this. Let us remember that ICANN has the ability to release any information privileged information it wishes. Discussion of CW comments to the list - however cost of implementation is beyond our mandate. Steve DelBianco: IRP is complex and expensive, and may not be the best tool to challenge the board for redacting a single portion of its meeting minutes. Michael Karanicolas: Hi Steve - I think the concern is that there should be some accountability/oversight. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Thomas Rickert: Great document. Kavouss Arasteh: Question - Removing parts of Board minutes before or after Board approval of minutes? Greg Shatan: very concerned regarding client-attorney privilege? Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Good document - One point: It is proposed to “provide a clearer picture of how, when, and to what extent ICANN engages with governments”. I prefer to extend it to cover all parties that ICANN discusses policy matters with – that is, not only to governments. Kavouss Arasteh: Aha, Someone from GAC opposing to governments ''' avri doria: transparency should be the default condition. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: I agree, Avri. The traditional roles don't work in this context Thomas Rickert: We are collecting the comments and not trying to deal with them here. David Mcauley: sub-group has not approved this for a first reading. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree David too soon for 1st read here David McAuley (RySG): I think Michael's update was great but I think we have not addressed this at subteam level - Michael? Chris Wilson: Expect further discussion on our call on Dec. 15. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Best to follow proper process and go through sub team. avri doria: I respect the work they are doing to try and meet the staff schedule for completing the work. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and we have not had our so meeting yet David McAuley (RySG): Timing is tight and again I think Michael's presentation today was a superb update Chris Wilson:Not trying to short-circuit the sub-group. Greg Shatan 2: Perhaps this should be considered a "discussion," rather than a "first reading." Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, Greg. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes a great update but not a 1st read Thomas Rickert: Could we ask the sub-team to provide the plenary with a revised version for the next meeting of the plenary. Would also ask participants to provide any comments on this to the plenary list. 5. AOB Kavouss Arasteh: HR congratulations should be made officially. Mathieu Weill: this has been done earlier in the meetings and is in the notes. 6. Adjournment

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #15 - 15DEC16
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup | Meeting #15 @ 05:00 UTC - 15December16 will be made available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FJTDAw For your reference, a copy of the notes are below. Thank you! Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes SO/AC Accountability Meeeting #15 15 December 2016 @ 05:00 UTC Apologies: Julf Helsingius, Olga Cavalli Agenda: 0. Call Administration 1. Review of any AI's from call #14 on December 8th see https://community.icann.org/x/D5TDAw[community.icann.org] 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation readings and review. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69… - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on pg 5 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule o 12 January @ 13:00 UTC o 19 January @ 05:00 UTC o 26 January @ 13:00 UTC Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat) * Farzaneh walked through the agenda. * Request from Kavouss to move the 0500 of JAN 19 to 1900. 0. Call Administration (Skipped.) 1. Review of any AI's from call #14 on December 8th * see https://community.icann.org/x/D5TDAw * Steve Del Bianco: during the last call, tracks 2 & 3 were discussed. A new version of the document was circulated on Monday, with updates on track 3 regarding IRP. We'll get back to the draft in the last portion of this call. 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SO andAC's * Farzaneh: We have received response from the ccNSO, constituency group of GNSO and the GAC. Expecting responses from other parts of the GNSO. We have tabulated the answers from GNSO and GAC in a google doc, we'll add the ccNSO after this call. * Steve DelBianco: ASO informed us today that we should have their response this week. We should discuss sending a reminder email to remaining organizations. * Kavouss suggests adding a deadline for responses to be received, so that there is enough time to analyze the responses. * avri doria: we should ask again, but remember that while they should fill them out, they are under no obligation to do so. * Cheryl: maybe our co-chairs can help us get the missing answers. * Steve: we need to fill subteam 1, so that they start working on this, and we should not wait until our next phone call to start the work. * Cheryl: it would be helpful to have more people volunteer to join team 1. * Displayed tabulated table of responses on screen. Current table displayed is difficult to use, because the columns are very narrow. * Loaded GAC response. * Steve: We'll have to summarize the responses in order to be able to display them side by side. Let's discuss the methodology to do the analysis. * Kavouss: we have to keep in mind the end result, which will have to be a short summary of the responses provided. * CW: Do we expect a GNSO reply, and/or several other replies from their respective communities. * Steve: we expect responses from GNSO, but also from stakeholder groups and business constituencies * CW: the first two replies reveal dominant themes, and we should follow these themes (common grounds, and exceptions). This should help identify best practices. * Cheryl: Subteam 1 can use the weekly call to progress the analysis, as well as work off line through the mailing list. * Steve suggests breaking down the question #2 into sub-questions using letters to number the sub-questions. Subteam 1 should follow this numbering in their analysis. * Structural differences need to be noted as part of the analysis, to avoid misinterpretations. * Steve reiterated the need for more volunteers to participate in the analysis of the responses received. ACTION (rapporteurs): work with co-chairs to send reminder emails to SO/ACs who haven't responded yet. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation readings and review. * This section couldn't be covered in call, due to lack of time. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule o 12 January @ 13:00 UTC o 19 January @ 05:00 UTC o 26 January @ 13:00 UTC * Request from Kavouss to move the 0500 of JAN 19 to 1900 - Cheryl will check if the slot is available.

1 0

WS2 Transparency Report: Draft 2
by Michael Karanicolas Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hi all, In preparation for Wednesday's plenary, we're pleased to enclose a second draft of the WS2 Transparency Subgroup report and recommendations. The whistleblower protection section is largely unchanged from the last section, as is the background discussion. The DIDP has a few new recommendations, stemming from the discussions that took place at ICANN 57. Also, we went back to the four subthemes as originally conceived, replacing the broader "proactive disclosure" section with more targeted sections on "transparency of interactions with governments" and "transparency of board deliberations". The former is largely unchanged from the last draft, while the latter is new. Happy reading! Best, Michael Karanicolas Senior Legal Officer Centre for Law and Democracy

3 2

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelFunding-ICANN58(Copenhagen) Update and new form
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

All, As confirmed at the plenary meeting of 14 December the Co-Chairs will be evaluating and approving a first round of travel funding applications early next week. The Co-Chairs will consider those applications received by Sunday 18 December end of day in this round. We would encourage all those who qualify and wish to apply for travel support, but have not done so yet, to do so in the first round (emailing staff your application by end of day Sunday 18 December). If you have already applied for CCWG-Accountability travel funding to ICANN 58 you do not need to apply again. If you are applying for travel funding please remember this is only for attending the CCWG-Accountability Face to Face meeting to be held 10 March 2017 and is not meant as support for the entire ICANN 58 meeting. As such the most that can be applied for is airfare and 2 days of hotel and per diem (see rules for details at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support+ICANN58 ). A second round will be held as previously announced and will close 8 January 2017. Additionally we have received a number of comments that the application form was difficult to fill out. To remedy this issue please find attached a text only form (below and attached) which should be simple to fill out using any system. Bernard Turcotte Staff support to the CCWG-Accountability ===================================================================== CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Supported Travel Request Form You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG-Accountability only if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are an officially listed Rapporteur for a WS2 sub-group. The CCWG Co-Chairs will review the applications received, including the requests for partial support, and determine the list of approved CCWG members who will receive travel funding. The CCWG approved travel support list will be submitted to ICANN Constituency Travel for processing according to community travel guidelines Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency travel guidelines located at: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home CCWG appointed Members or rapporteurs requesting consideration by the Co-Chairs for travel support to attend a face-to-face meeting must complete and submit the travel request form by the stipulated deadline in order to be considered for funding. Applicant Identification ======================== Name: Chartering Org or Rapporteur for which WS2 Group: Email address: Date of Request: Other sources of support ======================== Please indicate if you are receiving travel support from another organization to attend the ICANN meeting I am receiving support from another organization (yes or no): If you are not receiving support from another organization, please proceed to “Support requested from CCWG-Accountability”. If you are receiving support, please provide the information requested below: Name of the Organization(s) providing the support: Indicate type of support and how many days the support is provided (BY FUNDING ORGANIZATION): Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days): Support requested from CCWG-Accountability =========================================== Please indicate the type of travel support (including the number of days) you are seeking from the CCWG for WS2 – please remember this is only for attending the Face to Face meeting and is not for the entire ICANN meeting. Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days):

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #6 | 13 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Diversity Subgroup, Meeting #6 - 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7pfDAw 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 ________________________________ Notes WS2_CCWG Diversity Subgroup | Meeting #6 |13 December 2016 @ 05:00 UTC Notes (including relevant portions of the chat) 1. Roll Call Roll call will be taken from the AC room 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks Fiona provided a summary of last call's discussions: In the 1st reading of the strawman document, a number of issues came up: - Issues of gender: request for us to place more emphasis on gender identity as opposed to sexual orientation - Request to add skills to our document, as a separate element of diversity. - Suggestion to ask SO/ACs to share with us what elements of diversity they consider to be important, as it may vary from group to group (SO/AC, board and staff).Questions for SO/ACs need to be drafted - Language: should consider meeting with the Meetings team to see how meetings could be set up in other languages than English. - Public data on age difficult to access - we should again reach to the Meetings team to see if it would be possible to get the data on age that is given to ICANN as part of the registration process. - we agreed we would focus on prioritization of the different elements of diversity. Today's call is a 2nd reading of the strawman document. 3. Discussion Topics- second reading of second version of strawman document Link to strawman document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XpXaGckf9IIYGgPKdMhBgKe8gzwruuCHgvXiz-D… Fiona has questions that may help the group move forward: - one recommendation that came out of WS1 was to have a diversity review of SOs and ACs. This could help us identify which elements of diversity are important. One question we could ask them is what mechanisms they have in place that enhance diversity? - We also have to figure out how we are going to reach out to the larger community, maybe by putting out a questionnaire for public comment, instead of just asking to responses from SO/ACs representatives. - One other question we have to answer: Identifying the possible structures that could follow, promote and support the strengthening of diversity within ICANN. Sebastien Bachollet: Other questions we can ask SO/ACs: Where do they stand regarding diversity? What could be the next steps they think they can take regarding diversity? Regarding sending out a questionnaire, it may be difficult to get balanced answers, but would be very interesting to get inputs. Maybe we could do it during the next ICANN meeting, through the registration process. Fiona: calling for volunteers to put together the questionnaire for SO/ACs. Let's try to get volunteers before our next meeting. We could add a few questions to the registration form, else we need to figure out how we will distribute the questionnaire. On Strawman 3.7 data collection: Data is being collected for ICANN meeting: A lot of information should already be there. Sebastien: not only from the data collected at ICANN meetings. We could also collect data through the SOI for example. On the ICANN website, you have a profile, we could also collect infos from there. Could be a task for the diversity committee to make sure that this data is being used. Fiona suggests talking to the staff in charge of collecting the data to see how we could best use it. Rafik: the problem is that data is scattered between SO/AC, SG/C and also SOIs, applications for review teams etc. no to suggest a centralized database though but agreeing in some standards Cheryl: the capturing exercise will always be a limiting exercise, as it's up to participants to input information as they wish into the systems. May be useful to ask for 3rd party professional survey to be done. On the strawman document Page 2, where elements of diversity are identified, I'd like it to be outlined that these elements are significant elements but not necessarily the only elements of diversity that ICANN may be interested in looking at. Cheryl: it can be a challenge to maximize diversity, sometimes due to the size of the group we are looking at. Appointments can only be made from people who have applied - if 99% of applicants are male, it is complicating the matter of trying to maintain diversity then. Fiona agrees that diversity is not just for diversity's sake, it should be relevant and add value. Rafik: if we start collecting more data and information, we should take care about data protection. Rafik: I think we should list all places where data are collected about the community, meeting attendees etc. Sebastien suggests to invite relevant staff to next meeting to discuss data collection, in particular the meeting team who is taking care of the registration data, but also Chris Gift, who is taking care of the web site and the new registration process there. Also may ask somebody from IT, on the technical side for data protection. Rafik: I think DPRD doing some work on that area too, maybe Ergys. Agreed next steps: - invite staff to discuss data collection - call for volunteers to draft questions - Fiona will start drafting questions and share them on the mailing list. Asking for assistance in drafting the questions as English is not her primary language. - address any remaining issues in the strawman document 4. AOB An update will be provided to the plenary tomorrow on the progress made by the subgroup.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 16 | 13 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #16 here; https://community.icann.org/x/tZPDAw 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) Action Items · ACTION (Subgroup): continue to work on this sentence on the mailing list and in Google doc. · ACTION (subgroup): add some substance to the document related to other SO/ACs Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Kavouss Arasteh: During the entire ICG,CWG,CCWG ,IOT,IRP ,,There has not been any chair so kind, balanced, patient, skillful and neutral as Niels. Congratulations Niels. Audio only: no participants. Roll call will be taken from the AC room No SOI updates Discussion of FoI during plenary on Wednesday 14 – 13:00 UTC Niels unable to attend the plenary tomorrow. Tatiana and Greg will be attending and presenting the FoI. Encouraging subgroup participants to attend in order to support discussions in the plenary. Status of Legal questions: Waiting to hear back from ICANN Legal re: legal questions raised. 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the Human Rights Policy and Process Questions Draft document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> a. The policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights Niels read the section Kavouss:"ICANN can prioritize" - could we replace 'can' by 'should'? DM disagrees. This document is complex and needs a preamble. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with David on the change in meaning that comes with change from "can" to "should". Tatiana: let's rephrase it to say it is a suggestion from the group for ICANN to prioritize. Kavouss: "is consistent"; we don't know that it is consistent. change done Anne: the sentence still sounds a little akward, should be worked on off-line. ACTION (Subgroup): continue to work on this sentence on the mailing list and in Google doc. b. 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 and: Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Niels read the section. Kavouss: I have difficulties with the word "substantive" Niels: text in quotes is strictly for the GNSO David McAuley (RySG): agree w/Niels and GNSO policies should be treated as they usually are, should not imply change that process in this document. Paul McGrady: we should not limit this section to GNSO. Tatiana Tropina: the question is about policies and processes, so we have to think about AC David McAuley (RySG): I suggest that this document in no way imply a change to how GNSO policy is presently developed and approved in ICANN. Niels: should we try to include all SO/ACs? Paul: we want the FoI to be applicable to all SO/ACs Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Actually all gTLD policy is developed at the GNSO - not just "substantive" policies. Agree other SOs and ACs have input to that process and the GAC in particular has direct input to the Board. Greg: agrees with Anne, should say 'any policy' rather than 'substantive' ACTION (subgroup): add some substance to the document related to other SO/ACs Tatiana: There is mention of GAC further down in the document, so seems like GAC is covered already. Mary Wong: The Bylaws spell out the scope of the GNSO and ccNSO policy processes very clearly, including who can participate in a ccNSO PDP, initiate one etc. The ASO's mechanisms are quite different from either the ccNSO or the GNSO as well. Greg Shatan: "policies and frameworks". This needs to be given further thought. Mary Wong: The ASO policy process is spelled out in the MOU between ICANN and the NRO. On frameworks, there is now the Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs (recently adopted by the ccNSO and GNSO). Kavouss: "multistakeholder" repetition - text needs to be simplified. c. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Niels read the section. Kavouss: 4th line "and interpreted" should be "and implemented". The phrase could be simpler. Greg: we should continue to work on interpretation vs implementation. It's not the purpose of this group to mandate implementation. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): "The different SOs would consider incorporating HRIAs in THEIR PDPs, not "its". After that sentence, the references to "will" should be "would" in the conditional since "will" . Niels invites the group to make additional edits to the Google document. 3. AOB Next meeting of the subgroup: Dec 22.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20161214 slides for next meeting
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

All, PDF attached which includes the agenda which I have also included in text below: 1 Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour 2 Administration - Timeline - IRP-IOT Public Consultation - ATRT3 Letter to SO/ACs - Funding for ICANN 58 3 Legal Committee - Review of Requests - Process for requests from IRP-IOT 4 Updates/Presentation from sub-groups - IGF (short update) - Ombudsman (short update) - SO/AC accountability (short update) - Diversity (short update and questions) - Jurisdiction (review of questions) - Human rights (first reading) - Transparency (first reading) 5 AOB 6 Adjournment

2 1

November WS-2 Dashboard
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Hello all! Please see the November WS2 Dashboard document posted to the CCWG ACCT Wiki here; https://community.icann.org/x/tZvDAw With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0