December 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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