August 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[Announcement] ICANN Announces Incorporation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
by Hillary Jett Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-08-11-en ICANN Announces Incorporation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) ICANN today announced that the incorporation documents for the "Post-Transition IANA" organization have been filed and received by the California Secretary of State under the name Public Technical Identifiers (which will now be referred to as PTI). With this filing and receipt, PTI is now formed as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and controlled affiliate of ICANN. The PTI Incorporation Documents were drafted to reflect the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal, as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016. PTI was formed to perform the naming-related IANA functions under contract with ICANN. The PTI Articles were posted for public comment on 1 July 2016. At its meeting on 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board approved the PTI Articles and directed ICANN staff to move forward with the incorporation of PTI. Although PTI now exists as a legal entity, it is not yet performing any work. PTI will not perform any services under the IANA Functions Contract with NTIA. PTI will only start performing the IANA functions upon the successful completion of the transition. At that point, PTI will perform the IANA functions pursuant to an IANA Naming Functions Contract with ICANN (released for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iana-naming-function-agreement-2016-0…> from 10 August – 9 September 2016) and the subcontracts with ICANN for the performance of the numbering and protocol parameter services. For purposes of coherence of the IANA functions and overall operational logistics, the ICG proposal requires that the performance of the IANA numbering and protocol parameter functions be subcontracted to PTI. These subcontracting agreements are drafted and will be executed between PTI and ICANN so that they are in effect upon transition. The proposed Articles of Incorporation are the first of the various governance documents that will be necessary for PTI to be put into operation. In the coming weeks, ICANN will also be posting the final versions of the PTI Bylaws, Conflict of Interest Policy, Board Code of Conduct, and Expected Standards of Behavior. Each of these documents has already been subject to public comment, and will be submitted for ICANN and PTI Board approvals (where appropriate) before the transition. All efforts surrounding the Incorporation of PTI are designed to meet one of key the recommendations in the ICG proposal: the formation of a new legal entity to perform the three IANA functions. All implementation-planning efforts can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #2 _ 11 August 2016
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #2 - 11 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/wwOsAw 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 Action Items Action Item: 1. Report to the CCWG Plenary in two weeks progress on draft document, wiki to be ultimate repository of subgroups material. Notes Review and approval of the agenda, including a review of DT operating processes while holding a call. Agenda distribution will be more timely in the future as subgroup Rapporteurs will distribute directly . Discussion of the Mutual Accountability Roundtable proposal and possible approaches to framing what the roundtable might cover and include. Mighe need to do a level set to see where we are on the roundtable. and how mutual approach might be undertaken between the SO/AC communty, it is sharing best practices, what trying to accomplish in looking at accountaility Question posed - is the Mutual Accountability Roundtable a viable option Responses - need problem statement in order to fully consider - what problem trying to solve - will this improve performance, not sure might need to try first before determining - need to understand the usefulness of the roundtable before proceeding - what is mutual accountability to one SO/AC and between them all - need more than a problem statement Determined to out queston on hold and spend time framng the question Suggested work start on concept paper and having it shared on Google Doc's or other agreed exchange platfor Action Item 1. Report to the CCWG Plenary in two weeks progress on draft document, wiki to be ultimate repository of subgroups material. Documents Presented * Accountability.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61604803/Accountability.pd…>

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) Meeting #8 - 11 August
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) Meeting #8 - 11 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/WxGbAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes This call will be recorded Press *6 on your phone to mute and unmute while not speaking please Agenda A. Three Issues with Updated Supplementary Procedures 1) Application of subsequent modifications 2) Standard for in-person hearings 3) Cross examination in in-person hearings Becky Burr: latest version of the supplementary rules with input from ICANN and Sidley have been distributed on the list. The three main issues, which are not simply drafting issues, are: * Application of subsequent modifications * Standard for in-person hearings * Cross examination in in-person hearings Application of subsequent modifications - Section 2 Scope * Becky Burr: The Complexity of retroactively applying new rules would be daunting as such, proceedings which begin under a set of rules should continue under those rules? * David McAuley: On slide two, changes to supplemental rules I suggest deleting the word "not" in the phrase "would not affect any party's substantive..." and instead insert (where "not" was) the word "significantly". * Holly Gregory: What DM is suggesting, with modifications, is workable. * Becky Burr: using new rules cannot disadvantage the parties. * Kavouss Arasteh: Against the use of SIGNIFICANTLY but supports the last proposal from HG which removes all doubts. * Holly Gregory: TAKE EFFECT proposed change will be included. Next discussion of disadvantage. If someone makes that demonstration, then SOMEONE has to make a judgement call and it is proposed to be the panel. * David McAuley: Disagree with KA on MATERIALITY but agree with HG proposed language. * Kavouss Arasteh: agree with latest language from HG - we can include MATERIALITY but not MAJOR. * David McAuley: I accept MATERIALITY as the word * Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): Thank you Kavouss and David. We will use the materiality language. * Becky Burr: Avri's issue is important. * Avri Doria: But we are maintaining that any current IRP are not affected in any way by the changed rules? I find that problematic on substantive rights. Detailed presentation of her argument. * Becky Burr: also concerned given the changes to the rules are significant. The problem I have is we a situation where there are a number of IRPs have been submitted for decisions at this point - would we be saying you can reopen those which would imply significant consequences. AD? * Avri Doria: The rules we have just discussed (above) could be applied although it is understood it could complicate things. The panel could decide if the changes could materially affect a case. It may cause some things to be re-litigated but it is a one-time issue. * David McAuley: I think we need to avoid causing existing panels to re-litigate substantive matters that have been litigated but not yet resolved. * Kavouss Arasteh: This would seem un-implementable and would significantly complexify the environment. * David McAuley: I think I agree w/Kavouss that this aspect might not be implementable. * Avri Doria: I am not talking about procedural an issue, I am talking about applying the same conditions we just agreed to above to current cases. This is also not suggesting the introduction of new evidence or the rewriting of submissions. * Becky Burr: its about the standard under which ICANN is evaluated - this is a tough issue. * Avri Doria: If the submissions include arguments about the mission then they could become in-scope. * Kavouss Arasteh (missed issue on previous point) * Malcolm Hutty: I wanted to add a item on the Time Bar. Discrepancy on when the clock starts running. Becky Burr - will add to this agenda. Standard for in-person hearings * Becky Burr: We need a reasonably high bar. Many have supported this and ICANN had some concerns about the language and have proposed new language. ICANN is proposing two substantive changes. I am fine with the language about not allowing new arguments etc. as this is reasonable and have no particular feelings on the other points. * David McAuley: Support Sidley language vs ICANN language given the ICANN language is too tight. With respect to ICANN language, I suggest changing this language: "...which are limited to circumstances where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has demonstrated, with clear and convincing evidence..." to language in my next chat entry. Suggested new language in slide three: "...where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has clearly demonstrated ..." * Becky Burr: I supports this language. * Malcolm Hutty: I also supports this. * Kavouss Arasteh: I do not support the Sidley language. For me the ICANN language is more clear, precise and understandable. If we want to change CONVINCING EVIDENCE to something else then it should be changed but keep the remainder of the ICANN proposal. * Becky Burr: "where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP Panel determines that the party seeking an in person hearing has clearly demonstrated". * Holly J. Gregory: We at Sidley are fine with the ICANN language. * Samantha Eisner: I heard David say "clearly demonstrates". How about "clearly and convincingly demonstrates"? * Malcolm Hutty: Why does this need to be so tight, Samantha? If a Panel is convinced that a hearing is necessary to a fair outcome, surely it should happen. We've got language to make it abundantly clear this is not the be the normal procedure * Samantha Eisner: Clear and convincing evidence is meant as a signal to people of the type of the burden of proof that would be required in the American legal system. * Becky Burr: The sense of the room that it is generally ok with the ICANN language except for CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE and prefer DEMONSTRATE. * Kavouss Arasteh: could live with removing CLEAR. * Holly J. Gregory: Sam's comment if taken will draw in case law about what clear and convincing means * David McAuley 2: drawing in case law is a bad idea in my opinion, at least in this respect * Malcolm Hutty: how about THE IRP PANEL IS CONVINCED THAT .... * Samantha Eisner: prefer CLEARLY stay vs CONVINCING. * Kavouss Arasteh: why delete EVIDENCE. Like Malcom's suggestion. If the panel is CONVINCED that could be enough. * Becky Burr: CLEAR AND CONVINCING makes people uncomfortable as it relates to US court law. * Holly J. Gregory: I think David's original proposal was clearest. * Amy Stathos: We should remember that this is in extraordinary circumstances and we are trying to describe these. * Becky Burr: Meeting the three tests would make it extraordinary. What AS is proposing is to make that it even a higher bar. * Holly Gregory: support BB view. The three tests is a high standard. * Malcolm Hutty: supports BB view. * David McAuley: Agree w/Holly, good point * Amy Stathos: Just trying to create adequate guidance on what is required to meet those three tests for the panel. * David McAuley: I agree with Malcolm's earlier point about panel making decision - if it makes the decision it was convinced and if add "convincing" brings in case law then we are causing problems. * Becky Burr: Why do we think a panel could not make a clear determination without additional guidance? * David McAuley: "convincing" is a good word to instruct a jury - not needed here * Malcolm Hutty: Do not agree with AS. Meeting the three tests is the exceptional circumstance. * Becky Burr: DM's language would fix this. Will schedule next call and advise the list - we have to complete this work. * Kavouss Arasteh: not in favour using CIRCUMSTANCES. Becky Burr: Adjourned. Documents Presented * 11 Aug 16 IRP IOT.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60494171/11%20Aug%2016%20I…>

1 0

[Announcement] Call for Public Comment on IANA IPR Agreements
by Hillary Jett Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-11-en Call for Public Comment on IANA IPR Agreements Today, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Trust, the operational communities, and ICANN announced a call for public comment, soliciting feedback on draft agreements designed to address a requirement from the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-pro…> [PDF, 2.3 MB]. The Proposal required that the domain names that ICANN uses to perform the IANA functions and the IANA trademarks (the "IANA IPR") be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator, and held for the benefit of the entire community. This call for public comment<https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/> seeks community input on three agreements concerning the IANA IPR developed by the community to meet this requirement from the Proposal: · IANA IPR Assignment Agreement · IANA IPR License Agreement (model) · IANA IPR Community Agreement The ICG web site is being used as a neutral site to host this call for public comment, but the agreements are not a product of the ICG. After public comment inputs are reviewed and considered, the agreements will be finalized. The agreements are expected to be signed upon successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition. ICANN is a party to some of the agreements posted for comment: · The IANA IPR Assignment Agreement, through which ICANN will transfer the IANA IPR to the IETF Trust · Three IANA IPR License Agreements, through which the IETF Trust will license back to ICANN the rights to use that IANA IPR in the performance of the IANA functions. There will be three IANA IPR License Agreements, so that there is one representing each portion of the IANA functions (naming, numbering and protocol parameters). The Community Agreement sets out how the naming, numbering and protocol parameters communities will work together with the IETF Trust. Comments are due by 12 September 2016 at 23:59 UTC. Comments should be submitted via email to IANAIPRpubliccomment(a)ianacg.org<mailto:IANAIPRpubliccomment@ianacg.org>. Commenters should clearly reference to which of the agreement(s) their comments apply. For more detailed information, please visit https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #3 - 9 August 2016
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #3 - 9 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YwObAw 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 - could all CCWG members be placed in the same hotel to facilitate exchanges? * Action Item - staff to draft a letter of appreciation for Grace Abuhamad for the Co-Chairs. * Action Item - need to accept the changes in the Google doc and update the PDF for HR Subgroup Notes 1. Welcome, SoI: Leon Sanchez * Kavouss Arasteh: two additional items for agenda - 1 letter of appreciation for Grace Abuhamad for her two years of service. 2 All rapporteurs should sign a letter of impartiality to show they have no conflict of interest to avoid issues like in the CWG. * Leon Sanchez: support the first request but not the second. Our charter already covers this for the Co-Chairs and then by extension to any rapporteurs. * Kavouss Arasteh: LS your prerogative but disagree on the second. * Thomas Rickert: KA you always remind us that we must respect all. We did not request any such letter from our rapporteurs in WS1. Doing so now would break with precedent and could be seen as discrimination. However, let us use your comment to remind everyone of the charter. 2. Updated Staff papers * Bernard Turcotte - All documents should be completed by the end of the week. * Niels ten Oever: need to accept the changes in the Google doc and update the PDF. ACTION ITEM for staff. 3. Update on request regarding ATRT3 * Thomas Rickert: Letter has been sent as of August 9th. Will advise when the ICANN Board replies. 4. Dependencies between sub-groups * Thomas Rickert: the co-chairs in cooperation with the rapporteurs will closely monitor this to avoid any conflict on dependencies. this subject should be covered at each plenary meeting. * Sebastien Bachollet: I would propose to go a little further - I would ask all groups to identify any inter-dependencies with other groups early and advise those groups. This would help lessen potential conflicts. * Thomas Rickert: would ask rapporteurs to update the co-chairs on this in two weeks. 5. ICANN 57 Travel * Leon Sanchez: reminder of the deadline for applications and reminder of the policy rules. * Kavouss Arasteh: could all CCWG members be placed in the same hotel to facilitate exchanges. ACTION ITEM for staff. * Julie Hammer: This may not suit everyone as people may prefer to stay in the same hotel of their constituency. * Kavouss Arasteh: people should be free to choose. * Sonigitu Ekpe; what is the difference between members and participants. Members are appointed by their respective SOACs. 6. AOB & Closing * Kavouss Arasteh: reject the notion of using any particular law in the jurisdiction sub-group. Leon Sanchez: since the group has not met yet it is too early to make any judgements - let us see what the actual group does. * Greg Shatan: Co-Rapporteur of the jurisdiction - we should not go in with pre-conceptions but we should not make these up either. I also declare I am neutral in this matter and look forward to work with all in the sub-group. * Leon Sanchez: reminder to everyone to participate in their selected groups. * Action Item - staff to draft a letter of appreciation for Grace Abuhamad for the Co-Chairs. * Leon Sanchez: Adjourned.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability - BFC call 2 August transcript and recording
by Bernard Turcotte Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Hello, Here is the transcript and recording from last week’s BFC call (Sorry for the delay, transcript was sent to the wrong Kimberly). https://www.dropbox.com/s/nw5r26ysg31ra5q/20160802_BFC_Cost_ Control_Mechanisms.mp3?dl=0 Thanks, Kim *Attendees:* Alan Greenberg Cherine Chalaby Bernard Turcotte James Bladel Mathieu Weill Byron Holland Thomas Rickert (on phone only) *Staff:* Robert Hoggarth Kim Carlson Xavier Calvez Olof Nordling Theresa Swinehart Marika Konings *Apologies:* Thomas Schneider

1 0

Proposed Agenda for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting on 9 August
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Hello all, In preparation for your call CCWG Accountability Plenary WS2 Meeting #3<https://community.icann.org/x/YwObAw> on Tuesday, 9 August @20:00 - 22:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+Meeting&…>), see the following proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, SoI 2. Updated Staff papers 3. Update on request regarding ATRT3 4. Dependencies between sub-groups 5. ICANN 57 Travel 6. AOB & Closing Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #1 _ 8 August 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #1 - 8 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/eyGOAw 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 1. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies * Per Adobe participants list 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks * Rafik Dammak and Fiona Asonga co-chairing. 3. Discussion of our mandate/remit and purpose as outlined by WS1. * Fiona Asonga: General presentation on WS2 4. Brief Presentation (Comments) * Rafik Dammak: Definition of diversity in the ICANN context? What areas shall we focus on? What can we use as inputs? What other experiences can we learn from? We are also waiting for the background paper from staff. * Sebastien Bachollet: We would need more data on diversity beyond what was presented by AFNIC. If there is not more it could be one of our tasks to build such data. * Julie Hammer: need to understand how we define (or describe may be more realistic) diversity is needed to understand what type of data we want to collect. It could also be that different aspects of diversity could be different for different groups. As such some aspects of diversity could/should be best addressed in those groups. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: there is quite a bit of difference on the information - would be good to have a solid base. Not all aspects of diversity are more key than others. * Niels ten Oever: many people have been thinking about diversity and we should look at the literature and compare to what we have in ICANN. We need to understand what we are talking about - email lists, staff, Board etc. Maybe not all are on the same level. * Fiona Asonga: Agree NTO. need to define diversity. What is important for us is to understand what diversity we are looking at - technical, geographiical, gender etc. * Niels ten Oever: +1 having everyone define their own requirements will be messy * Niels ten Oever: and will mess up indicators. Niels ten Oever: One could think of geographic, gender, orientation, age, minorities, time involved, education, expertise, etc * Fiona Asonga: we will move the discussion to the list as to which should be the areas we focus on. * Tijani BEN JEMAA: language and culture diversity are key * Lousewies van der Laan: I think its key to have an atmosphere that is open and inclusive, so that all minorities, including sexual ones feel welcome. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): absolutely for us in ICANN IMO should be *inclusiveness, opportunity to participation (here I mean both minimal barriers and facilitation, and if course recognition of our desired 'diversity objectives* for our component parts of ICANN and as a whole... 5. Discuss the work plan * Fiona Asonga: It would great if we could have defined our areas of focus by then end of the month. We could then gather data. * RaffikDammak: This should be considered a complex topic. (or at least one that will be time consuming). 6. AOB / Next Meeting * Doodle poll to determine meeting times. * Adjourned

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #1 _ 4 August 2016
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #1 - 8 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ASsAw 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 Notes 1. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies (Sebastien Bachollet) 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks * General remarks 3. Setting the scene of WS2 Work Stream 2 Design Team / Subgroups Design Team / Subgroup working methods * Reminder that this group reports to the CCWG-Accountability plenary. * Time and day of the week meetings have been pre-booked to October 24 rotating between the 3 time slots of 0500, 1300 and 1900 UTC. Mostly Mondays except for August `16 and September 6 which are on Tuesdays. 4. Round of *brief* Self Introductions from all Participants and Observers * Introduction of participants. * Review of the list of participants and observers. 5. Setting the scene of DT Ombudsman Discussion on WS1 result about Ombudsman * Ombudsman role already expanded in WS1 wrt Reconsideration Requests * CWG-Stewardship has also expanded with escalation for PTI. * These roles are in addition to the Ombudsman existing role as defined in the Bylaws. * what should be considered in WS2 * when are our deliverables due (March or June)? * Are we talking about the Ombudsman or the office. * Evaluate charter and operations vs industry best practices * Recommend changes to make it effective. * Additional roles * How to avoid duplication? * Advice to the next * Ombudsman * Sebastien Bachollet: Would seem to make sense to have our recommendations for March as the Board will be considering a new office of the Ombudsman. * Chris LaHatte: changes should be brought as quickly as possible if any changes are needed. * Herb Waye: any major changes will require a change to the Bylaws - so a quick changes may not be best. * Avri Doria: many of the other groups may end up having co-dependencies with our work and as such it would be difficult to complete our work without having those results. * Chris LaHatte: most important to get it right vs getting it done. * Asha Hemrajani: Our focus here should be on the function of the office of the Ombudsman, rather than any particular person filling the role * Herb Waye: Agree with Asha. * Sebastien Bachollet: Dependencies will be critical. * Chris LaHatte: see a possible strong link with Human Rights. * Avri Doria: transparency, CEP processes * Avri Doria: human rights perhaps as well. * Avri Doria: SOAC accountability since where do they go when they have insoluble problems? * Asha Hemrajani: +1 Avri - I think it would be useful to have "links" to or some kind of updates from the Transparency & CEP groups...perhaps even IRP? * Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: that role or roles (additional from other DT's) as outlined by Chris and referred to as dependencies can surely at least be described in General Terms (as required language) as we do early work on this topic? * Sebastien Bachollet: Agree - we need to identify who will fill these linkage roles. * Avri Doria: as a co-rapporteur of staff acct, i can fill that connector slot. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: same here for AC/SO Acct * Sebastien Bachollet: CLO were there any stress tests dealing specifically with the Ombudsman? could you report at the next meeting? CLO: Yes. * Sebastien Bachollet: Industry Best practices. International Omb. best practices is on our Wiki page. If anyone has any relevant documents could they please post it to the list. Action Item - who would be willing to take on producing a comparison of the current defn vs industry best practices. 6. Discuss our work plan [short and medium term] 7. AOB / Next Meeting * None * Next meeting Tuesday Aug. 16 1300UTC * Adjourned Action Items Action Item - who would be willing to take on producing a comparison of the current defn vs industry best practices.

1 0

CCWG-ACCT Extension for Hyderabad Travel Support Applications
by Karen Mulberry Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Dear CCWG-Acct. Community, I wanted to reach out to apologize for the initial short turn around for submitting your CCWG-ACCT travel support application to attend the November 2nd face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad. I appreciate everyone¹s patience as we work with Constituency Travel on the process needed to ensure that travel arrangements for CCWG members can be handled in a timely manner. As a result, we have been able to obtain additional time for CCWG members who have not yet had the opportunity to submit an application to do so. Please plan to have your application for CCWG-ACCT travel support submitted to acct-staff(a)icann.org by August 12th. I would also like to thank everyone who has already submitted an application for funding; the applications that have been received are being posted on the WS2 wiki under travel support at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support If you have any questions or require additional time to consider your plans, please do not hesitate to contact CCWG-ACCT Staff Support at acct-staff(a)icann.org so we can assist you and keep Constituency Travel informed. Sincerely, Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN

5 5