December 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #5 | 06 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Diversity Subgroup, Meeting #5 - 06 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YBu4Aw. A copy of the notes may be found 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/> ________________________________ WS2 Diversity Subgroup Mtg #5 | 06 December 2016 @ 13:00 UTC Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 0. Call Admin and Roll Call Audio Only: Cheryl Langdon-Orr 1. Welcome - Opening Remarks Version 2 of the straw man document is available on Google Docs. What do we need to improve on? What key questions do we need to prepare, to share with the ICANN community? 2. Discussion Topics - review second version of strawman: 2nd version of strawman is available for review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XpXaGckf9IIYGgPKdMhBgKe8gzwruuCHgvXiz-D… Main topics discussed: - Diversity vs skills - Special needs / how to accommodate them during ICANN meetings - Linguistic diversity - Gender diversity, and the need to distinguish between gender identity and sexual orientation - Age diversity - Suggestion to seek feedback from SO/ACs to understand how they have implemented diversity - Suggestion to address the various groups of ICANN separately Detailed discussions: Sebastien would like to raise 2 points: - Diversity vs skills - Ask feedback from the SO/ACs to understand how they have implemented diversity, Fiona: we thought we had captured that point (div vs skill) in section 3.6. Fiona: the way ICANN meetings are organized is not appropriate for those who are challenged. Sebastien: we could ask staff what is done on the registration form (is question asked at registration re: special needs) & how they respond to that Javier Rua-Jovet: I think we should recommend Staff to look into acquiring Braille finger monitors. Sebastien: the language used is always English. It could be encouraged to use different languages, for example by having rooms with different languages in each. Javier Rua-Jovet: I supprt Sebastien's views on linguistic diversity. ICANN has accommodated IDNs, but in meetings, the languages of the IDNs are not spoken. What effort is being made to translate documents? Fiona raised a point about gender, and if it should be part of the discussion. Lousewies: gender should not be binary, we need to include the LGBT community. everyone should feel welcome, and the leadership should reflect that diversity. Javier: our position should be the most progressive, the most open as possible on the topic of gender. Lousewies van Der Laan 2: in the notes, I would be grateful if a clear distinction could be made between gender identity on the one hand and sexual orientation on the other period they are two distinct matters period someone can identify as a woman and be in a relationship with a man and would therefore not to self identify as gay. Javier Rua-Jovet: Agree completely with Lousewies on gender vs sexual orientation. Fiona: we need to identify which components of diversity are the most important, which ones are measurable, and which aren't. Javier would also like to speak on the issue of age (section 2.4). 2.4 seems to talk only about young people ("from Millenial through to the next generation"), we should also include old people. Sebastien: there is no public data on age of community members. When I was on the board, there was reluctance from the board to include younger people. Inexperienced people can be trained, but we can't change who we are, so skill is not as important as diversity. Julie: different aspects of diversity are different in each context. Each group within ICANN should define which aspects of diversity are of importance to them. Fiona: we need to think of ways to engage with the various groups of the community on this. Lousewies van Der Laan 2: I also think it is helpful to make a distinction between areas where we would like I see a NN to be inclusive, areas where we would like to encourage more people to be active and areas where we expect a certain kind of balance in the leadership for example 3. AOB * Fiona will regroup with Rafik and Leon after this call to take in consideration all the comments received. * 2 more calls before the end of this year. * Attendance was low today, hopefully it will catch up again.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 12 | 5 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12 – 5 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XITDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Also, as requested on the call today, here is a link for Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8%5byoutube.com>] 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: Vinay Kasari unfortunately unavailable. Also we are competing with IGF. Any changes to SOI's? (none)_. 2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions Greg Shatan: Any input on the 3 questions as circulated? David McAuley: Thank you for getting us here GS - Am not a fan of these questions but given the discussions this is the best we can get. Greg Shatan: any objections to starting the process to publishing these? David McAuley: I gather we have not decided on the process? Greg Shatan: Correct DM - process for this is point 4 on our agenda today. No other comments so these 3 are good. Let us now look at the additional question (#4) 3. Discussion of additional question a. Formulation of question Greg Shatan: We have rough consensus on the previous questions but not on this one. Neither do we have a stable draft of this question. Any comments on the question. David McAuley: Does not specify a point of view and could cause issues in analyzing the responses. Greg Shatan: Question used to be WHAT DO YOU THINK and then mutated. Pedro da Silva: Generally I favour more straightforward and general type questions - however given the inputs I would support this proposed text - but this question HAS to be part of the questions. Greg Shatan: Any other comments? Given the limited number of people participating we will have to put this on the list. Let us now talk about including the question. b. Whether to include the question Javier Rua-Jovet: If I may, I feel this question is quite clear, balanced and straightforward. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes indeed to the list Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: I have already expressed my viewpoint about this in my comment David McAuley: I do not support asking this question. Phil Corwin: Share DM's misgivings and do not really support sending it out. Greg Shatan: To PC I would note that there is a footnote. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You can count me as not in favour of sending this out. Fluffy questions get fluffy answers - in the end it gives very little results. Greg Shatan: Temperature check - support for sending the question? (2 for 5 against). Consistent with discussions on the list. Given the low numbers we should put this back on the list. David McAuley (RySG): appropriate for list, agreed Pedro sa Silva: IGF is an issue. should go to the list. Greg Shatan: will work with staff about how to poll the group on this. 4. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process Greg Shatan: KA has brought up that the questions should go to the plenary. a. Introduction to questions Greg Shatan: the SOAC questions had an introduction. I think this would be very important in our case. Any thoughts on this? some support no objections - would need a drafting team. General agreement. DM has offered to help draft. b. Review by CCWG Mathieu Weill: The precedent we have set with the SOAC sub-group should be the basis for this. As such the questions should be shared with the plenary for approval. c. How to send out Greg Shatan: ICANN community or wider? Pedro da Silva: I would support wider distribution and should not be restricted and we should use the standard ICANN public consultation. David Mcauley: Depends on expected turn around time. Greg Shatan: Not really looking at trying to use the formal ICANN Public Consultation. This is not what this is. May not be practical to send this out prior to end of year if we need Plenary approval (next meeting is Dec. 14 and the Jan 11). d. Who to send it to e. How to collect responses David McAuley (RySG): if we go free form pdf we need a word limit Greg Shatan: We have some tendencies as to a process - we will gather these and send to the list. 5. Discussion of “Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction” document Greg Shatan: Need to regain our momentum on these documents. Mathieu Weill: The sub-groups were made for working. David McAuley: As an original sceptic of Google docs I can say that once you get in it its fine. 6. AOB Greg Shatan: any AOB (none) Action Item - Staff to recirculate Google Docs Primer link to this sub-group. Brenda Brewer: For Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com] Mathieu Weill: Let's also acknowledge that some colleagues do not get access to Google Doc as part of their employers IT security policies Mathieu Weill: Comments via PDF and emails should be ok 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned. Documents Presented · Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Experience%20Ques…> · Additional Question.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Additional%20Ques…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions_5 Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/InfluenceofExisti…>

2 1

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelFunding-ICANN58 Instructions, Process and Application Form
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 5, 2016

Dec. 5, 2016

All, The CCWG-Accountability has travel funding for some Members and Rapporteurs to attend the Face to Face meetings held the day prior to an ICANN meeting who do not have any other funding available to them to attend. Members are those individuals that are specifically appointed by the chartering SO/ACs to the CCWG-Accountability - the list of Members can be found at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59640780 . Rapporteurs are those listed as such on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Wiki for specific sub-groups located at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+SubGroup+Topics. Please see the attached policy for details regarding this funding. If you are not a Member or a Rapporteur, please do not apply as there is a very limited number of seats available. The next Face to Face meeting of the CCWG-accountability will be held on 10 March 2017 in conjunction with ICANN 58 in Copenhagen Denmark. Those Members and Rapporteurs wishing to be considered for travel funding should fill out the attached form and submit it by Sunday 8 January 2017 to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org. The funding is for the Face- to- Face meeting, which can include airfare, hotel and a per-diem allocation for meals for attending the Face to Face meeting only (and not the full ICANN meeting). However, in analyzing the requests the Co-Chairs will consider requests for partial funding (such as only an additional day of hotel and per diem to attend the Face to Face meeting) in order to maximize participation. As such Members are encouraged to only apply for what they need to allow for funding as many Members and Rapporteurs as possible. The final decisions on travel funding will be made by the Co-Chairs and published on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support within 7 days of the application period closing (a confirmation of the posting will be sent to the CCWG email list). Those being supported will then be contacted by ICANN Travel using the standard ICANN travel funding process to arrange details. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the CCWG-Accountability support staff at Acct-Staff(a)icann.org . Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs.

2 1

Proposed Human Rights Framework of Interpretation by HR Subgroup
by Niels ten Oever Dec. 5, 2016

Dec. 5, 2016

Dear CCWG plenary, It is with great pleasure that I hereby forward you the proposed Framework of Interpretation for the ICANN Human Rights bylaw (FoI-HR) as developed by the Human Rights Sub Group (CCWG SG HR). This document represents the interpretation of the human rights bylaw language phrase-by-phrase. This is just one task of the CCWG SG HR, though a major one. There are other issues to be addressed (see Annex 6 of the CCWG report) and the CCWG SG HR is currently moving forward to provide the answers to other human rights-related issues to be addressed in Work Stream 2 according to Annex 6 and Annex 12 of the CCWG report. It was of the opinion of the CCWG SG HR that the Framework of Interpretation could benefit from early discussion in the CCWG while the CCWG SG HR is still working on finishing the second part of its work. We're looking forward to discuss this FoI-HR in the plenary. Best, Niels Rapporteur of 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 4

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #14 | 02 DEC 16
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 3, 2016

Dec. 3, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes and details for the CCWG Accountability WS2 - Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #14 here: https://community.icann.org/x/ypXDAw A copy of the notes is also listed below. Thank you! Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> Notes 1. Administrivia • Audio only: Leon Sanchez • No SOI updates • Nigel Roberts will no longer be co-rapporteur of this subgroup, as he couldn't make the time commitment anymore. • 10 working weeks till Copenhagen. • Next meeting Friday 19:00 UTC is an exception, will resume with regular schedule thereafter. 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI • 2nd reading continued b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week) • Drafting team has worked on this section • Tatiana presented the revised text proposed by the drafting team • The openning bracket before "finally" is a mistake and will be removed. • David asking to clarify what the revision is about. • Tatiana indicated that the revision was about "legal hierarchy". • Greg indicated that the compromise proposed is the use of the work "standing' instead of "legal", ie "no standing hierarchy". • No further comments from the group. c.‘respecting’ • Greg read the section on "respecting" • No further comments from the group d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’ • Greg read the section on "internationally recognized human rights" • Greg indicated that "International" should not be capitalized • Andrew asked: "not applicable" in a legal sense? • Greg: not applicable in any sense • Group agrees with Greg's explanation • Kavouss: international law should not interfere with applicable law • Greg: this is covered by the section "Furthermore, depending on the jurisdiction etc." as well as the next section. • David McAuley (RySG): it seems clear to me that national legislation is addressed in what Greg just read • Niels suggests moving to next section. e. ‘as required by applicable law’ • Tatiana read the section on "as required by applicable law" • No changes were made here • No comments from the group f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law’ • Greg read the section • No changes made • No comments from the group g. ‘‘This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week) • Greg read the section • Kavouss: "other parties against other parties" doesn't seem correct, suggest changing to "one party against other" • Greg agrees that the use of repetitive "other parties" is somewhat confusing. Suggest "one party against other parties" or " a party against other parties" • David McAuley (RySG): The language is inelegant but in bylaws as I recall • Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): it is very much like the Bylaws text - I'll defer to native speakers here... • Andrew Mack: of a party against others sounds best • Niels ten Oever proposes: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to enforce the human rights obligations of ICANN or any other party against other parties. • Group agrees with Niels text. • 2nd reading now finalized • Need to discuss next steps: do we want to share this part of the work with the plenary now, or prefer to work on the other document first? • Cheryl suggests sending this part to the plenary. • Group votes to decide whether to send or wait. QUorum in favor of sending the FoI to the plenary for discussion • ACTION (Niels): will take care of sending the FoI to the plenary 3. AOB • Leon congratulated the subgroup for the progress made.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #5_ 01 December 16
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 2, 2016

Dec. 2, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #5 – 01 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YITDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): - Intro stuff: agenda review, attendance, SOI check • Apologies received from Jordan Carter & George Sadowsky • Roll call will be taken from the AC room • Agenda approved • No SOI updates - Review mandate • Reviewed mandate from Annex12 - Review of where we are • Formal request for documentation made, still pending • Had initial discussion with Goran in F2F in HYD • Jordan & Avri have discussed basis for cooperation between Staff and Community, and are preparing a write-up of those discussions to share with the group asap • Denise: Do we have more details on how/when Goran is planning to document staff's role? • Avri: Should be part of the answers we are waiting to receive from ICANN • Greg: general message I heard from Goran is that the staff is here to serve/support the community. Performance reviews is a key point for this group to deal with. • Alan Greenberg: Performance reviews of people who are here to serve the volunteer community, but with no input from the volunteer community, is :"interesting" • Jeff Neumann would like to bring up another point. It feels that sometimes staff are at a loss and don't know what their path forward is. It is frustrating when something needs to be implemented and doesn't get implemented by ICANN staff. • We need answers on what exists, in order to review and further discuss. • Pam Little: Could we get a commitment when our questions will be answered? • Phil Corwin would like to bring up another point: means for GDD staff tio be sensitized to policy implications of certain contract negotiating positions and a procedure for them to inform policy staff and GNSO Council in advance to gather feedback on impact and appropriateness. - Review of what we need to get done and how we will get it done. • Avri presented next steps per her presentation • Reviewed the Staff Acct dashboard slide, that will be updated monthly. - Schedule and can we still meet the short track schedule • Avri thought the group was on the longer track, but for now the group is on the shorter track. • Seems difficult to meet the shorter track timeline, given the remaining work. • Alan, Greg, Cheryl agree the group cannot meet the shorter schedule. • Robin Gross: There are so many different ongoing working groups going on right now. It is just not possible to get it all done on the timeline ICANN wants. - AOB • No AOB.

1 0

Fwd: [Acct-Staff] CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 2, 2016

Dec. 2, 2016

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM Subject: [Acct-Staff] CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review To: katrina(a)nic.lv, thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch, jbladel(a)godaddy.com, louie(a)louie.net, patrik(a)frobbit.se, tsinha(a)umd.edu, bverd(a)verisign.com, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, steve.crocker(a)icann.org Cc: ASO-chairs(a)aso.icann.org, Olof.nordling(a)icann.org, Thomas Rickert < thomas(a)rickert.net>, Heidi.ullrich(a)icann.org, Acct-staff(a)icann.org, aso(a)icann.org, Bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, David.olive(a)icann.org, Marika.konings(a)icann.org, Carlos.reyes(a)icann.org, Steve.sheng(a)icann.org Dear SO & AC Chairs, The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: · Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. · Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. · Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as communicated in our 8-Aug-2016 letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann…> to the Board of ICANN: Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations The ICANN Board replied <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-…> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community’s direction. Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the following approach: • Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. • Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. • Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). • Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next steps would be: • SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community • Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought • Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team • Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs _______________________________________________ Acct-Staff mailing list Acct-Staff(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #13 | 1 December 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #13 from 1 December 2016 @ 13:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XoTDAw A copy of the notes and chat are found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items * ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list. Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat) 0. Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO) * Roll call will be taken from the Adobe Connect room. * Audio only: Greg Shatan * Asking for more volunteers to join the report drafting team 1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd * see https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw[community.icann.org]<https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org%5D> 2. Updates (5-10 mins) :- * During CCWG Plenary, our subgroup requested to be moved to track 1. This request was approved, our group will now work towards the longer timeline. * Reviewed the SO/AC Accountability dashboard slide - Working now on 3 tracks only. * Steve DelBianco gave an update on the edits made to the draft document. 3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandate to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins) * Kavouss would like to discuss the applicability of IRP to SO/AC. It has not been designed for that. * Alan indicated that he would think the rules would be amended if we decide it is a good vehicle * David McAuley made a presentation of the IRP: * SO/AC are not legal entities. * Costs of an IRP can escalate, not sure if SO/AC could pay for those. * It would probably take a change in the bylaws to take SO/ACs in IRPs. * CW in support of David's point on costs. * Kavouss: if we agree that IRP is not a good vehicle, we should document why in our report. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply * Steve: I hear that IRP is not applicable today, that it could be, but that it should not. More lighweighed vehicles like ombudsman would be more appropriate. * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make no final decisions applicable to third parties * Greg: the IRP is not fit for purpose for SO/AC dispute resolution. * David reinforced that he believes the IRP is not the right vehicle and would require heavy changes in SO/AC entities * Sebastien Bachollet, Alan Greenberg express support. * The cost implication should not be the only motivation, there could possibly be indemnification. * David McAuley offered to make a written statement to the mailing list to summarize his intervention. * Avri: appeal to the board could be an enabling step to IRP for SOAC action. * Farzaneh summarised the views expressed, ie the existing bylaw is not applicable, and the IRP should not be amended for SO/AC.. * Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it could be made applicable, by amending bylaws significantly,the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction * Next steps: * Steve: We now need to focus on track 2 on MAR, while we wait on responses from SO/ACs on track 1 * The drafting team will update our draft report with today's outcomes. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff) * 8 December @ 19:00 UTC 5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO) * ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list. * Sebastien Bachollet apologizes for not being able to join the next call.

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2016

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

2 2