January 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript - WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup | Meeting #11 | Monday, 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup - Meeting #11 - 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC will be available on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/2xK4Aw. A copy of the notes from the meeting are available below. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMFAw&…> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 9 Participants at start of call. 1. Welcome Sebastien Bachollet: no exceptions. 2. Review of plan for Hyderabad Sebastien Bachollet: (Presentation of slides) Herb Waye: Concerned this report only represents the views of a small number of people and not the community. Sebastien Bachollet: Our work will be presented to the plenary of the CCWG-WS2 so this is not an issue. After it is accepted it will go for public comment to be accepted by the community. Herb Waye: Willing to pay for part of the evaluation, have funds and will have to do one (there may be a conflict of interest with such funding). Klaus: I am just thinking about if anybody outside the WG will actually understand the slides? Somehow I think not. We might need a more "understandable" version. Content is OK but who will understand and do we get the message across? Avri Doria: i think there will be chance to explain t to assembled crowd. In terms of staff accountability, we have included a reference to the necessity of coordinating with this group. Chris LaHatte: the slide about consent of the Ombuds is an issue Avri Doria: but the people listening will all be CCWG participants. Herb Waye Ombuds: Did this idea of consent come about as a copy of the reconsideration new process in the bylaws I wonder? Klaus: I think the cross group issue is critical now, we will need to have a mechanism in place to have the input from the other WG's Bernard Turcotte: @Klaus - the co-chairs advised on the leadership call last week that they would focus on this to ensure synchronicity between sub-groups Klaus: Great, good to know. Thanks Karen Mulberry: I am working out the details for the Review that you have asked for Cheryl Langdon-Orr: we should note that at least from the slide mentioning crossover matters the mention of Elections might be inflammatory for some CCWG Members. Sebastien Bachollet: This was one of my suggestions for our work. Herb Waye Ombuds: That idea is good Seébastien and it could be in the office but I would need to ask for funding for staff... The IOO could become a sort of ethics office Sebastien Bachollet: the evaluation will probably impact our timetable. Klaus: Ethics can never be a subject of an office but an community. Happy to discuss this at a face to face basis. Herb Waye Ombuds: Agree Klaus, two separate hats but some organizations do it as part time functions. Sbastien Bachollet: Shall we resume our calls immediately after Hyderabad. Next meeting on November 14 or 21? will check with staff AOB? (none). Adjourned.

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw 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 · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl… Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: · Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. · Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. · Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. · Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. · Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.

6 8

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 31 Jan 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #18 here; https://community.icann.org/x/ZJzDAw 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 chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call will be taken from the AC room. No participants on audio Apologies: Matthew Shears, Jorge Cancio, No updates to SOI. Review of agenda - Greg: suggest to review the bullet points in annex 12 point by point. Greg will send a slide to display in this call. 2. The way forward Niels provided summary of email exchanges with co-chairs, and summary of mailing list discussion. • Kavouss: we should not open the discussion again, but mandate the small group who drafted the FoI to flag if anything is missing from Annex 12. • John Laprise: I would suggest to open up for public comment now, and take it from there. • Greg: the co-chairs have asked us to confirm if we have covered Annex 12, so we should go through each bullet point against the FoI, and determine if each point has been taken in consideration. The drafting team did a textual analysis of the bylaw, our understanding was that the consideration of all bullet points was a separate task. We need to confirm that we are done before going to public comment. • Niels: I am not sure if the Annex 12 mandates 1 or 2 documents. • David: agree with Greg, we should take the time to consider the different points. There could be 2 documents if necessary. • Kavouss: I agree we should verify that the FoI considers all points of Annex 12, but suggest it should be done by the drafting team or another team, and not leave it to public comment. • Anne: I agree that we may not have considered all the points in Annex 12 while developing the FoI, and these points need to be discussed more in depth. • Niels: let's go through the bullets one by one, and see where we are. Review of bullet points of Annex 12: bullet #1: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. • Greg: I think we did consider this bullet but we have not concluded. • David: I agree. • Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think we have considered the first bullet point. • David McAuley (RySG): I don't se it a a non-answer given that the bylaw 1.2(b)(viii) ha s to be read with this and it does point to applicable law • Tatiana Tropina: we didn't consider it while drafting • David McAuley (RySG): this might highlight one aspect of making "suggestions" - we could perhaps suggest HR instruments ICANN might consider but not say "should" in FOI • Greg Shatan: The question is which instruments should ICANN use? What is our answer? • Tatiana: We have not considered these bullet points, we have done a textual analysis of the bylaws. I don't believe this FoI is ready for public comment. • Kavouss: opposed to any other course of action than the one I previously indicated • Niels: there are different possible ways forward. • Greg: I support the suggestion of Kavouss. I think it would be premature to send out the FoI to Public Comment. When we consider the different bullets of Annex 12, we might want to modify what we have written in the FoI. The co-chairs have asked us if we have considered Annex 12, and we have not. • Anne: I agree that the discussion should be kept at the level of the subgroup, and we should answer to the co-chairs that we have not considered all the bullet points of Annex 12. • Niels: we don't have to answer everything right away. Suggest to continue the discussion next week, and consider next steps then. • David: how about we designate a leader for each bullet point to kick off discussions on each topic? • Several voice opinion in favor of forming a group to prepare the discussion. • Niels: we will form a small group and the group can start working on considering the bullets before our next meeting next week. 3. AOB Next subgroup call: Tuesday, February 7th, 19:00 UTC. Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 12.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/Presentation%20Me…> · Annex 12 Bullet Points.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/Annex%2012%20Bull…> · ProposedFoI-HRforCCWG.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/ProposedFoI-HRfor…>

1 0

CCWG-Accountabiliyt-WS2-PlenaryMeetings Agenda to July 2017
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

All, Please note the following dates for plenary meetings going forward (calendar invites will be sent). This is also a reminder that any material a sub-group wishes discussed by the plenary (first readings, questions etc.) need to be sent to the co-chairs and staff at least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting occurring so these can be distributed 7 days prior to the plenary to allow all participants to familiarize themselves with the material prior to the call (To facilitate this for all we have included the PUBLISH dates for materials in the calendar below). Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability. Plenary Schedule February to June 2017 Month Date Day of week Hour UTC Activity February 2017 1 Wednesday Publish documents February 2017 2 Thursday February 2017 3 Friday February 2017 4 Saturday February 2017 5 Sunday February 2017 6 Monday February 2017 7 Tuesday February 2017 8 Wednesday 13:00 Plenary February 2017 9 Thursday February 2017 10 Friday February 2017 11 Saturday February 2017 12 Sunday February 2017 13 Monday February 2017 14 Tuesday February 2017 15 Wednesday Publish documents February 2017 16 Thursday February 2017 17 Friday February 2017 18 Saturday February 2017 19 Sunday February 2017 20 Monday US Holiday - President's day February 2017 21 Tuesday February 2017 22 Wednesday 1900 Plenary February 2017 23 Thursday February 2017 24 Friday Publish documents February 2017 25 Saturday February 2017 26 Sunday February 2017 27 Monday February 2017 28 Tuesday March 2017 March 2017 1 Wednesday 5:00 Plenary March 2017 2 Thursday March 2017 3 Friday Publish documents March 2017 4 Saturday March 2017 5 Sunday March 2017 6 Monday March 2017 7 Tuesday March 2017 8 Wednesday ICANN 58 March 2017 9 Thursday ICANN 58 March 2017 10 Friday Face to Face ICANN 58 March 2017 11 Saturday ICANN 58 March 2017 12 Sunday ICANN 58 March 2017 13 Monday ICANN 58 March 2017 14 Tuesday ICANN 58 March 2017 15 Wednesday ICANN 58 March 2017 16 Thursday ICANN 58 March 2017 17 Friday ICANN 58 March 2017 18 Saturday ICANN 58 March 2017 19 Sunday ICANN 58 March 2017 20 Monday March 2017 21 Tuesday March 2017 22 Wednesday Publish documents March 2017 23 Thursday March 2017 24 Friday March 2017 25 Saturday March 2017 26 Sunday March 2017 27 Monday March 2017 28 Tuesday March 2017 29 Wednesday 13:00 Plenary March 2017 30 Thursday March 2017 31 Friday April 2017 April 2017 1 Saturday April 2017 2 Sunday April 2017 3 Monday April 2017 4 Tuesday April 2017 5 Wednesday Publish documents April 2017 6 Thursday April 2017 7 Friday April 2017 8 Saturday April 2017 9 Sunday April 2017 10 Monday April 2017 11 Tuesday April 2017 12 Wednesday 19:00 Plenary April 2017 13 Thursday April 2017 14 Friday Easter April 2017 15 Saturday Easter April 2017 16 Sunday Easter April 2017 17 Monday Easter April 2017 18 Tuesday April 2017 19 Wednesday Publish documents April 2017 20 Thursday April 2017 21 Friday April 2017 22 Saturday April 2017 23 Sunday April 2017 24 Monday April 2017 25 Tuesday April 2017 26 Wednesday 5:00 Plenary April 2017 27 Thursday April 2017 28 Friday April 2017 29 Saturday April 2017 30 Sunday May 2017 May 2017 1 Monday May 2017 2 Tuesday May 2017 3 Wednesday Publish documents May 2017 4 Thursday May 2017 5 Friday May 2017 6 Saturday May 2017 7 Sunday May 2017 8 Monday May 2017 9 Tuesday May 2017 10 Wednesday 13:00 Plenary May 2017 11 Thursday May 2017 12 Friday May 2017 13 Saturday May 2017 14 Sunday May 2017 15 Monday May 2017 16 Tuesday May 2017 17 Wednesday Publish documents May 2017 18 Thursday May 2017 19 Friday May 2017 20 Saturday May 2017 21 Sunday May 2017 22 Monday May 2017 23 Tuesday May 2017 24 Wednesday 19:00 Plenary May 2017 25 Thursday May 2017 26 Friday May 2017 27 Saturday May 2017 28 Sunday May 2017 29 Monday US Holiday - Memorial Day May 2017 30 Tuesday May 2017 31 Wednesday Publish documents June 2017 June 2017 1 Thursday June 2017 2 Friday June 2017 3 Saturday June 2017 4 Sunday June 2017 5 Monday June 2017 6 Tuesday June 2017 7 Wednesday 5:00 Plenary June 2017 8 Thursday June 2017 9 Friday June 2017 10 Saturday June 2017 11 Sunday June 2017 12 Monday June 2017 13 Tuesday June 2017 14 Wednesday Publish documents June 2017 15 Thursday June 2017 16 Friday June 2017 17 Saturday June 2017 18 Sunday June 2017 19 Monday June 2017 20 Tuesday June 2017 21 Wednesday 13:00 Plenary June 2017 22 Thursday June 2017 23 Friday ICANN 59 June 2017 24 Saturday ICANN 59 June 2017 25 Sunday ICANN 59 June 2017 26 Monday ICANN 59 June 2017 27 Tuesday ICANN 59 June 2017 28 Wednesday ICANN 59 June 2017 29 Thursday ICANN 59 June 2017 30 Friday ICANN 59

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 30 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #19 – 30 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/14PRAw 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: · · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments on the list · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · MW has completed his 2 cases. · Re draft question from DM on possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdictions – sub-group should review and post comment if any this week. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (15 participants at start of call). No changes to SOIs. 2. Questionnaire a. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Great deal of discussion. Some requesting 30 days after the ICANN58 meeting. Would suggest closing 7 April with no extensions possible - as a middle ground. Any comments? Bernard Turcotte: Reminder that KA has requested 30 days after ICANN 58. Greg Shatan: yes 7 April would be a compromise. Avri Doria: sure, give all the time people need. David McAuley (RySG): I ilke the idea of not extending and looking at replies as they come in John Laprise: the longer the better to allow participation and knowledge of the issue. Greg Shatan: Good points, we have a lot of work to do in the meantime so no reason not to extend. Also, we can ask people to respond early and the group can consider these as they come in. As such would suggest closing 17 April which is 30 days after ICANN 58 closes. Mathieu Weill: A quick work plan note: Mid Apr is 2 months away from Johannesburg. Might be difficult to be in a position to have a 1st reading by then David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu Mathieu Weill: Not that it is a deadline, but it's important to manage expectations on timeline Greg Shatan:(decision) No objections. So, the questionnaire will be taking responses until 17 April which is 30 days after ICANN58 and there will be no extensions. Avri Doria: if we work with the replies coming in, then finishing up after the 17th might be quick. and we can make a plea for early responses because of the schedule. 3. Hypothetical #1 (taken from “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C ) Greg Shatan: This is what I think is the heart of our work. (going through the document). David McAuley: A difficulties I am having is understanding WHAT WENT WRONG. Otherwise Avri Doria: does the nationality of the plaintiff feed in any complexity? Philip Corwin: On point 4, if the ruling is against ICANN and ICANN belives the ruling to be erroneous, it has a right of appeal. Mathieu Weill: Who is judging on correctly or wrongly decided? Avri Doria: it is a possible good thing to mark all the points in the hypotheticals where some action by ICANN and its Board & EC Philip Corwin: IMH< the key consideration is that ICANN is HQ'd in a jurisdiction with a clear commitment to the rule of law, and that any party with standing can initiate litigation regardless of their home jurisdiction. Avri Doria: Philip sometimes easier said than done Mathieu Weill: We should check how many litigations in court were initiated by parties outside the US (to check how Phil's requirement translates into practice) Avri Doria: As long as someone from the 7 countries does not need to appear in court, it might be ok. Philip Corwin: @Avri--challenges of bringing litigation, especially costs, are hardly unique to US Wale Bakare: Would the decision different in either case? Avri Doria: i don't know, but i understand some view a physical presence as sometimes preferable in terms of making an appeal. Wale Bakare: In physical's emotions can get involved and perhaps could impact on the decision Avri Doria: often a good thing Philip Corwin: regardless of the governing law, the court's ruling might be pro-ICANN from one judge and anti-ICANN from another. There is no way to guarantee 100% consistency in any judicial forum. That's why there are rights of appeal. Avri Doria: they are part of the equation Mathieu Weill: Having ICANN accountable to other governing laws might actually bring additional accountability, for instance related to privacy Mathieu Weill: This is a great list of factors to compare jurisdiction if need be David McAuley: It might help if we segment questions in 2 ways - Corporate Governance questions and Everything else. Greg Shatan: This could be a template for looking at things. 4. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl… Greg Shatan: Kudos to MW for being the first to complete his. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks for that Mathieu - I need to get active on my reviews Philip Corwin: Facts are often in dispute in litigation, with the court being the ultimate finder of facts. It finds the facts, and then it applies the relevant law. Mathieu Weill: GS will wait for your update to the forms. Greg Shatan: Will do. c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… 5 “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C a.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuy… Greg Shatan: We need to look to other hypotheticals that go to this question. KA has suggested a list of questions earlier in the year. 6. AOB Greg Shatan: DM has drafted question for ICANN Legal. Will consider this week. 7. Adjourn Decisions: · · Time period for responding to questionnaire will be until 17 April with no extensions.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

Thanks, do find inline: On Jan 26, 2017 2:11 PM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: Dear all, Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. SO: Exact question that I have been asking as well, which also implies that it's not helpful to put the draft FoI to public comment without getting clear response on the point above! Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary. SO: May I ask the Co-Chairs to clarify what part of the WS1 report mandates the HR subgroup to carry out the task above or is this WS2 assigning a new task to the subgroup?. Like I have said, it seem to me that all HR needed to produce was the FoI and they just need to confirm if the draft they sent was done is consideration of Annex 12 period! Regards Best regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 26 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #18 – 26 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9a-DAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat) 0. Call Administration Cheryl Langdon-Orr: no updates to SOIs. 1. Review of any AI's from call #16 on January 12th @1300 UTC (2-5 min) CLO) see https://community.icann.org/x/FJTDAw[community.icann.org] Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (none) 2. Any Updates: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (none) 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations, readings and review. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's - As agreed in last week's call, while exploring methodology, we will review and discuss, the sample topic from this track from the data capture exercise, 'Transparency' see reference drafts attached to the email from Steve DelBianco received to list https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-so_ac earlier today. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Exploration of methodology using one topic only. Alan Greenberg: Response from ALAC has not been approved by the ALAC. Steve DelBianco: Deep dive on Transparency Mechanisms (document). Hope this will provide a method for all aspects of this work. Not trying to point out failings of any SO or AC - its about finding the best practices. (Review of document). Alan Greenberg: looking at the list. items included were based on interpretations of the questions. If we were looking vs capture we should of mentioned that. Steve DelBianco: I note that we are supplementing this with our independent research to match the facts from all responses. As to the second point - the text notes Capture. Transparency can help identify capture - but cannot prevent it. Alan Greenberg: After this discussion, I can now review my responses to tailor them to these objectives. Steve DelBianco: We are open to supplementary information coming in. Kavouss Arasteh: Internal or external capture? Steve DelBianco: Would seem to be mostly Internal capture but not limited to this. Alan Greenberg: Steve, all I was saying that as completing the answers, that was NOT something I focused on DESPITE the Bylaw and my history with this project. It was not something I focused on. matthew shears: we should see this as iterative Alan Greenberg: Once something has been vetted, going back and revising may be problematic - not related to this group's rules. Steve DelBianco: Missing RSSAC. Kavouss Arasteh: should mention that this internal capture is not addressing Sress Test 18. Which review are you referring to, self review or different? Steve DelBianco: On page 3 section 4.4 of Bylaws says its an independent review. Kavouss Arasteh: Tks ,then emphasize that in our report Kavouss Arasteh: Pls clarfy the independent process Greg Shatan: Concerned about the need for full consensus being part of capture. Steve DelBianco: discussion of draft recommendations in document. These are meant to be Best Practices for the SOACs where they are free to implement and how to implement these. (presentation of the 6 draft recommendations). Rinalia Abdul Rahim: I personally like the approach of establishing best practices on transparency as a guide/benchmark for SO/ACs. Some SO/ACs are likely to exceed the baseline, and that is fine. jorge villa (ASO): +1 Rinalia Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I personally agree with you Rinalia jorge villa (ASO): All the SO/ACs are different in structure, composition, interests and functioning. The best practices approach might provide a common ground on the recommended aspects. Farzaneh Badii: I like how the recommendations on transparency is done on page 3 matthew shears: agree with the approach Steve - sets a good precedent for the work going forward Farzaneh Badii: it is to the point, does not call out on any group Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): all ALAC, RALO and At-Large meetings unless specifically declared as going into 'camera' for closed to Members only with declared reason are Open, Recorded ( often in several language options) Transcripts made and where relevant minuted... And all are published to public wki and lists. SOACs should be publish what they are supposed to do. Alan Greenberg: We even have interpretation for meetings where it is not actually needed so the others can later listen or read. Steve DelBianco: CLO SOACs should publish the details of their transparency requirements. Will add recommendation on open or closed meeting. Would request more volunteers to do this for the other two points. Farzaneh Badii: shall we work on outreach next? Farzaneh Badii: as a part of participation Farzaneh Badii: I think those that function differently can take these recs or leave it Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): seems a good suggestion Farzi we will check with the group Julf Helsingius: Yes, there are (justified) exceptions Alan Greenberg: We need to somehow say that the best practices for some circumstances where it could not work at all. Farzaneh Badii: we are not in charge of implementation if they see the recs are not fit, they don't have to do it Steve DelBianco: subject to specific and documented Limitations for some group. Alan Greenberg: We cannot make it a requirement if they cannot. avri doria: apologies for not having sent in the GNSO-NCSG data before now. Just sent it to Steve. Alan Greenberg: It is not OUR job, but that job description might be written one day. Alan Greenberg: Steve, in light of this meeting, I will have a revised version before the end of the day, so perhaps wait until you see that to integrate ALAC. Steve DelBianco: okay Alan. I will add this Transparency bit to the Google Doc next jorge villa (ASO): In the world of network operations, the best practices are recommendations (based on the experience of the community). no one has the obligation of do everything includes on the best practices recommendations. We asume it as main topics to consider (if possible). Cheryl Langdon-Orr: this will need to be continued and would ask more join the drafting teams. FB has suggested we continue with this approach Steve DelBianco: I think that matches our concept here, Jorge Julf Helsingius: I agree Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is everyone agreeing that Outreach be our topic for our next call? (no objections). Let us remember to treat these documents as living documents. Steve DelBianco: where Outreach is an activity that is an aspect of participation Farzaneh Badii: yes :) Steve DelBianco: Farzi -- would you be able to lead that drafting? Farzaneh Badii: I will 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule · 02 February @ 19:00 UTC · 09 February @ 05:00 UTC · 16 February @ 13:00 UTC · 02 March @ 05:00 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (none). Adjourned.

1 0

Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

Dear all, The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2. The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also. The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced. Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary. Best regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #10 | 25 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #10 | 25 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/PK3DAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ NOTES (including relevant parts of the chat): 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items · Report on what data is being collected was distributed to the mailing list. Asking the group to review. · Questionnaire was worked on, will be discussed later in today's call. 3. Participation Data Collection - Discussion with Chris Gift (CG) · CG: we do collect data accross the organization, but it is difficult to do anything with all the data because it is collected in different systems, and the data is not identified (for example, if 3000 people attend a meeting, and another 3000 next meeting, we don't know if it is the same people or different people) · Having a Global Account would allow particitants to access the different systems with single sign-on. · Also enables to identify participants and analyze group participation. · Rafik: How can you ensure that the data will be populated? and will it include diversity data? · CG: The current ICANN.org<http://icann.org/> profile/sign-up doesn't give you a lot, but there are other activities where signing in is mandatory (eg meetings, work groups...). The idea would be that you need to create a global account before you can sign-up for a working group, or register for a meeting meeting. · CG: we want to get guidance from the community in terms of which data to collect, and from this group in particular. Also would be interested in hearing thoughts on data privacy. · We'll ensure data consistency, and have a reporting tool to analyze the data that will be collected. · Rafik: we have discussed elements of diversity that we'd like to collect. · CG: we'd like to be able to report on each participant's activity within ICANN · Sebastien: will the system help track data on leadership? Also, today, community members have to enter similar information multiple times, in particular multiple SOIs - how will this work? · CG: the global account will capture leadership information. · CG: for SOI, we are working on something else called Global Enrollment. We are prototyping right now, and will present the concept in Copenhagen. · Lousewies van der Laan: I think people will be willing to volunteer more personal information if there is a strong privacy guarantee and they know aggregate data will be anonymised. · Chris Gift: Agreed. We have to be clear about privacy and about opt-n / opt-out · Rafik: people may be active in other ways than signing-up for meetings or work groups, you should list use cases to make sure you have in mind all the different types of involvement and how to capture these. · Lousewies van der Laan: I think on languages it would be good to give people various options : languages I can easily engage in, ones I can follow but will feel limited when in meeting etc. · CG: The Global Account is more than just Single Sign-on, it is a wau to capture data and be able to report on it. The Global Enrollment project focuses on joining work groups ACTION (subgroup): get more input from the subgroup and provide more feedback for the Global Account project. ACTION (Chris Gift): send documentation to the subgroup about Global Enrollment 4. Review of Draft questionnaire · Some work was done to the questionnaire. · Julie Hammer: first 2 questions were crossed out, I think there are fundamental to the questionnaire · Rafik: there was a concern to limit the number of questions. · FIONA ASONGA 2: I think Questions 1 and 2 are important · Questions 7, 9, 10, 11 will be deleted, and questions 1 and 2 will be brought back in. · Add to question 6: which level of details ACTION (questionnaire drafting team): update questionnaire with inputs received 5. AOB - ICANN Ombudsman Office & Diversity office proposal (Sebastien Bachollet) · Sebastien (ALAC): The Diversity-DT is currently working and discussing on a "Proposal to create an office of diversity within ICANN, to collect data and make proposals to improve diversity."In the discussion of the IOO-DT we have suggested to include this in the ICANN Ombuds Office as the « Ombuds should promote diversity, ethical behaviour, human rights, and fairness" and because the IOO is an (the only for the moment) independent body within ICANN.Can both the Diversity-DT and the IOO-DT consider this proposal? · Rafik: the subgroup hasn't yet followed-up on the proposal of creating an office of diversity. One concern I see with have the IOO take that role is that it diverts it from its original role of Ombudsman. · Sebastien: the question is whether it is a duty for the community, for staff, or for an independant party, such as the Ombuds office. If there is more work falling under the Ombuds Office, it may require more than 1 or 2 persons. ACTION (subgroup): continue the discussion about office of diversity on the mailing list · FIONA ASONGA 2: I think we shall need to review what diversity roles the office will play before we can firm up

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

Dear All, I fully support Brésil in regard with its statement that Quote "*As regards the deadline for conclusion of the Subgroup work, Brazil will not accept artificial deadlines considering both the importance of the topic at hand and also the fact that we haven't even started real substantive work".* Unquote What we deed during the last three months was A) Drafting a questionnaire B) jumping from one topic to other topic. Postponing almost every issue for later dissuasion. In fact we are at the end of the beginning. A long way to go . We should not hurry at all We do not agree with what said in Frech" vite fait, mal fait" Regards Kavouss - 2017-01-25 18:42 GMT+01:00 Benedicto Fonseca Filho < benedicto.fonseca(a)itamaraty.gov.br>: > Dear all, > > I support the calls for a reasonable extension of the deadline. The > experience we have developed at the national level and also in the > organization of NETMundial has convinced us even further that enough time > should be allowed for multi stakeholder processes to bear the desired > fruits. As regards the deadline for conclusion of the Subgroup work, Brazil > will not accept artificial deadlines considering both the importance of the > topic at hand and also the fact that we haven't even started real > substantive work. > > Best regards, > > Benedicto > > Benedicto > > > ________________________________________ > De: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [ > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Kavouss > Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 25 de janeiro de 2017 14:04 > Para: Perez Galindo, Rafael > Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and > transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January > > Dear Jorge, > Taking into account that the issue is rather complex and GAC > représentatives > Need to be adequately briefed in Copenhagen and provided further brief > to their national multistakeholder the 30 days is the minimum commenting > period. > I hope CCWG Co-Chairs would kindly agree with that assisting developing > countries to have necessary time to reflect and comment > Regards > Kavouss > > 2017-01-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA(a)minetad.es > <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetad.es>>: > Please bear in mind that enough time is needed after the Copenhagen > meeting to consider discussions. The deadline should not be set on an > arbitrary basis, but instead on a logical basis, with an aim to maximize > inputs and enrich discussions. Hence, I can only echo Kavouss and Jorge. > > 30 days after Copenhagen would be the best choice, but if it is felt that > it is too long, at least 15/20 days should be allowed as a minimum. > Otherwise, we would run the risk of preventing several parties from > participating and contributing, and the outcome could as a consequence be > deemed skewed or biased. > > Best > > Rafael > > > De: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>] En nombre de > Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Enviado el: miércoles, 25 de enero de 2017 14:33 > Para: kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; > mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; > Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; rickert(a)anwaelte.de > <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>; Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto: > Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> > CC: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:acc > ountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and > transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January > > Dear all, > > Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in > line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss: > > Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 > An: 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; > 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > Betreff: AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications > > Dear Mathieu > > Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines. > > Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for > instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and > that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged > comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after > Copenhagen. > > With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient > time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in > Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. > Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. > If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take > a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no > reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the > period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to > be received. > > Kind regards > > Jorge > > == > > I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we > may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all > interested parties to make their inputs. > > Regards > > Jorge > > > > Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2- > jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 > An: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto: > mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto: > Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx > <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de > <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM < > Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> > Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; CCWG > Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:acc > ountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and > transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January > > > > Dear All, > > Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for > response to jurisdiction questionnaire > > The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The > latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days > before that. > > I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after > debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen > > Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply > by shortening time to one third > > This is not acceptable and not agreed. > > This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand > where the figure 42 days comes from. Because one of the co-chairs or all > of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. > This is totally objected. > > We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . > > Pls correct that > > i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. > > secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But > I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing > person. > > Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. > > This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to > dine with us > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org< > mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>: > Hello all, > > The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 > Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available > here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw > > 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 > > • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and > distribute to list. > > • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases > (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. > > • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel > regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the > digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. > > • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of > ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting > and distribute on the list. > Notes (including relevant portions of chat): > 9 Participants at start of call > 1. Welcome > Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr > audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). > 2. Questionnaire > a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire > Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public > comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or > referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has > no objections. > b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire > Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. > Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the > standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. > David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the > questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a > team for this. > c. Translation > Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the > plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments > David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? > Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. > David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going > beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. > Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are > issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and > often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue > will still be there. > Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages > Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add > David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian > Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from > Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. > Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not > understand why we would expand - and any translation should be > professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to > their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. > Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond > UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard > UN languages. > Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because > it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more > than those that speak Telagu or other things > Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks > Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 > million native speakers. > Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed > Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it > Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many > people interested in the work of this group - who are :) > Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to > my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english > Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all > Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is > going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this > was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other > languages > Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected > Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. > doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me > 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation > a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/ > litigation-en > Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a > draft summary form and circulated for comments. > b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing > Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. > David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction > contested in any manner > Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to > our work should be the last line of the summary > Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to > cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, > on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. > Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there > are any?) > Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. > Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. > David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? > Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 > weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports > would be due 14 February). > David McAuley (RySG): ok > c. Sign-Up Sheet: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X > cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing > Greg Shatan: - > 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ > DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing > David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would > happen elsewhere? > Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to > how input in. > David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – > this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to > judge by – why not go by that? > Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help > us classify the cases. > David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be > sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal > counsel about that in the digital age. > Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. > David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do > David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week > Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. > Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for > this. > David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be > sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. > Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can > have better discussions on this. > David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is > important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. > Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and > distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. > David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about > it too > David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks > 5. AOB (none) > 6. Adjourn > Decisions: > > • Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page > which will have a web link to it. > > • Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN > languages by ICANN Language services. > > • Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. > > • Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard > 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the > 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions > for those requesting this could be possible. > > • Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on > the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. > Action Items: > > • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and > distribute to list. > > • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases > (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. > > • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel > regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the > digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. > > • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of > ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting > and distribute on the list. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Acc > ountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >

1 0