January 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 8, 2017

Jan. 8, 2017

Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 11

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #7 | 06 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 6, 2017

Jan. 6, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Transparency Subgroup, Meeting #7 - 06 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/F6vDAw A copy of the notes from the meeting are below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Roll Call Roll call taken from the AC room. 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks Michael: * Sending clean version to the group now so everyone has a clean version to look at. * Summary & introduction were trimmed down * Footnote was added to the background section * Clarification to the kind of requesters * Timeline has been shifted * Incomplete sentences on page 10 were completed * Taking suggestions/comments on this newest draft 3. Discussion of ICANN CCWG - Transparency Report WS2 - DRAFT David McAuley expressed several concerns (see transcripts for details) Edits made by Michael on the fly per discussion Discussed footnote 3 on human rights: * Alan Greenberg: if there are overlaps with the Human Rights group, we should resolve with that subgroup. * David: I think we should leave it to the Human Rights group, and if there are topics overlapping, wait until the HR group is done to discuss with them. * Philip Corwin: Agree with Alan that, irrespective of human rights status of information disclosure, what we must determine is the degree of required disclosure and the process relating thereto to further the goal of tranparency in service to ICANN accountability. * Footnote revised by Michael. About Treating ICANN as a governance: * Robin Gross: ICANN engages in global governance, no matter what it is called, so I think it is important to recognize the higher standard of transparency required of governments and adopt that standard. * David McAuley (RySG): I am happy to wait for ICANN's reply in this respect Discussed Public interest override: * Michael: That is an existing provision, not something new * David: I was not aware of that, where is it? * Michael reads existing provision * Alan Greenberg: how do we define what is global public interest? the AoI provide a definition, and the bylaws refer to public interest too. Public interest cannot always be determined by a bottom-up process. * Michael: suggests leaving this out * Chris Wilson: this is a pre-existing notion, I would agree to leave it out. * Alan: we just need to confirm we don't have a gaping hole in front of us * Adding a footnote to ensure there is no confusion. Suggestion to bring this for 1st reading to CCWG plenary. * Will include note that subgroup is waiting to hear back from ICANN on the topic raised in todya's call. * Michael will send revised draft prior to next CCWG plenary, and will present it for 1st reading to the CCWK plenary on Jan 11. 4. AOB

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 15 | 6 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 6, 2017

Jan. 6, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #15 – 6 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xaXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Welcome. Changes to SOIs? None. JN audio only. 2. Expected Standards of Behavior Greg Shatan: (Review of standards of behaviour) Mathieu Weill: Fully support Greg. Quoting the CCWG-A Charter : All participants are expected to abide by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.The co-chairs are empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the working group. Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances, this requirement may be bypassed. This restriction is subject to the right of appeal as outlined above. David McAuley (RySG): thanks Greg atthew shears: agree Greg - thanks Philip Corwin: Thank you Mathieu for pointing out that the co-chairs possess disciplinary powers for repeated violations of the Standards as well as for disruptive behavior. Wale Bakare: I am in strong support of the Standards of Behavior. 3. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Possible Revisions to Preamble and Questions Greg Shatan: Review of Preamble - review of three options in document. CW: Preamble: I have no strong opinion, except that the preamble should be SHORT. David McAuley: I have now reservations abut the questionnaire going out at all - given the discussions of the last few weeks has convinced me about this. We should stick to dispute resolution and contracts - especially given the questionnaire is not very professional. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with David. I assume the questionnaire will go out anyway, but I fully agree with what he said. Especially because I did with legal questionnaires and I know how hard it is Kavouss Arasteh: DM needs a glass of cold water but his statement does not help - we need to move forward with the questionnaire and decide on questions at this meeting. Philip Corwin: I share David's concerns but am reserving judgment on whether the questionaire should be sent depending on how this meeting proceeds. avri doria: While i do not agree with regard to the special problem with Q4, i totally agree on there being no aspect in which this is a professional questionnaire. Can support cancellation of the questionnaire. David McAuley (RySG): +1 Phil - we must stick to facts and discard opinions matthew shears: agree focus on facts and data Tatiana Tropina: I garee that all the problems come from the Q4 and that it makes the whole exercise vulnerable and out of the group mandate. Although I am not supporting the idea of the questionnaire itself but I could have lived with 3 questions. avri doria: I also do not think that Q4 is more an opinion question thatn 1-3 are. They all rely on opinion and perspective. Tatiana Tropina: this group is already full of different opinions, we need facts. Mathieu Weill: The way we frame the question is NEVER going to prevent respondents to provide opinions. matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana David McAuley (RySG): I also think even 1-3 could simply yield opinion Steve DelBianco: The preamble is the basis to decide if we are going to seek opinions can be subjected to a campaign of opinion loading throuhg an orchestrated response campaign. If we do go forward with a questions we should only consider unique responses based on facts. Greg Shatan: Have attempted to do this in option 7. Seun Ojedeji: Even though i have concern about the exercise we are about to get into but so long as we are focusing on facts, i don't think we should be concerned about question 4 any more. and i actually think focusing on fact should be the same for all the questions. Kavouss Arasteh: Coleagues, pls kindly do not use provocative terms in your statement like manipulating Kavouss Arasteh: Milton. that is your and few others views Tatiana Tropina: but at least when we ask for facts we can stick to facts when we got responses Philip Corwin: Agree that we cannot prevent opinions being submitted in response to any question, but we can agree in advance to discard any response that is not validated by facts and data. Milton Mueller: It is emerging that the source of the problem is question 4. In response to DM I acknowledge his concern but this is not meant to be a professional survey - I repeat we need to disconnect the first 3 questions from Q4. What is preventing us from doing this. Wale Bakare: The question 3 rely more on actual facts - experiences rather than opinions. We need to be focused on mechanisms of sourcing for data, as previously analysed by @Avri last week in the mailing list. Tatiana Tropina: again, can live with 1-3. If the idea is to stick to factual analysis once we got answers matthew shears: we should be ready to discount inputs that are not substantiated with fact Steve DelBianco: @Phil -- agree, and furthermore we should consolidate responses so that we discard duplicates citing the very same facts and evidence. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: In historical context - Jurisdiction issue goes back a long way. Support MM re surveys. Finally supportoption 7 on Q4. avri doria: the fact that 1&2 only collect facts from a single perspective and not a global perspective. You need question 4 to gather facts from the broader perspective. Tatiana Tropina: Matthew, yes. This is the thing. And this shall be determined before the questionnaire is sent. That once the answers come back only those with factual substance would be analyzed Greg Shatan: Matthew, that is the goal of this discussion. Philip Corwin: @Steve--and I agree with your point Milton: Avri, yes, perhaps we need to discuss the broader perspective, as you know i support that. But the framing of the question is very controversial and it has stalled everything Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with MM on first 3 questions. We will end up with a version of q4 one way or another - but would agree it could be done separately. Do not agree about the risk of a campaign. Jurisdiction thing in US is temporary. Do not agree that ICANN should incorporated in the US but this may take a long time - decades. Parminder: David making two points which should be tken seperately - whether only choice of law (privae law) is in our mandate, and the more formal issue of whether q4 is properly worded to get appropriate info. lets not mix the two very different things. Parminder: if indeed the mandate is under question - let us elave everything and first discuss and agree on it. It is truoblesome that we keep this keeps coming back - we cant work in ths manner. So, pl lets be first clear about mandate Becky Burr: just want to note that I am on the call and will be replacing Erika Mann as backup Board Liaison. Parminder: next, when milton says there is no opposition to question 1-3 to go out. No, I oppose it. Bec without q 4, it puts a question on the nature of remit/ mandate of CCWG Jeff Neuman 2: on the other hand leaving the issue open will mean that we will be consistently having this debate and not be able to focus on the real substance of ICANN activities matthew shears: agree Jeff Wale Bakare: +1, to Jeff. We would continually looping Greg Shatan: (reading Parminder chat posting given audio issues). David McAuley: I still think we would need to use a professional survey taker to get valid input. Milton: Again, this is not survey research, we are not quantifying percentages, or sampling a target population Milton: we are asking for facts or incidents Mathieu Weill: Situation is quite confusing to me. There seems to be consensus that we need facts. We have agreed to disagree on the mandate of the group. Reminder we are working for the community as agreed in WS1. There are significant expectations both internally and externally to ICANN and we cannot be seen to be trying to limit valid discussions. This is one of the first real tests of the post transition ICANN - we need facts to advance. Milton: +1 Mathieu Philip Corwin: Agree with Jeff, which is precisely why I advocated that, after spending two years and $14 million in legal fees to create an accountability structure that worked within the framework of CA law, we should have resolved the issue in WS1. Unfortunately the decision was made to kick the can down the road -- now this subgroup should be the end of the road. If US corporate jurisdiction ever creates a major problem I have no doubt that the iCANN community will recognize and address that. Milton: so TT and DM we identified a wording problem in the first question and we fixed it. Tatiana Tropina: Phil, yes absolutely, *but* this decision shall be based on facts and not just on opinions what is good and what is bad Milton: Can you identify any specific way in which the phrasing of the questions would not produce useful data? Mathieu Weill: Honestly, I've never seen a survey, even tailored by professionals, that "containeed' people within a given scope. If they want to speak up, they will, and that is the multistakeholder model isn't it ? Kavouss Arasteh: about 10 days ago the PC proposal for Q4 had great deal of support - we should work on this basis - we cannot drop Q4 and need to move forward. Milton: Kavouss, it is clear that Q4 has strong support but it also has strong opposition. So we are proposing to separate it from the other questions, not to dump it - it needs more work Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu, sure! The point is that to unsure which info one gets when the answers come back. Tatiana Tropina: I agree to separate the Q4 and send it separately after fine tuning. Tatiana Tropina: I mean, I agree to disagree, I have concerns about questionnaire as a tool itself but I understand that we have to do something so I concur. Kavouss Arasteh: Dear Tidjani, Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that??? David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that??? David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk Kavouss Arasteh: I can not agree to separate Q4 from the three other Qs Greg Shatan: Quality of survey should not be a major issue. We should use the remainder of our time to understand how to resolve Q4 issue. We need to work to resolve this by our next meeting. Any comments on the preamble. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly do not promote to separate Q4 from tother questions Mathieu Weill: @Kavouss, it is Greg, not Grec ;-) Kavouss Arasteh: It would be misinterpreted by the crecipiants Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu I think even Greg will agree that he is Grec now :-) Parminder: Prefer alternative 2, can live with alt 1, but dont accept current text or alt 3 Kavouss Arasteh: Preamble should precise and short and questions should be a max of 10 lines each. Make this as short as possible. Greg Shatan: Which version do you support? Kavouss Arasteh: support the shortest version. Parminder: to answer Greg, I dot support alt 3 bec it quotes the mandate selectively Philip Corwin: Prefer alt 1 -- shorter is better Parminder: Shorter and high level is best Steve DelBianco: I prefer Alternative 1 Milton: Alternative 1 for me Tatiana Tropina: Alternative 1 too David McAuley (RySG): support alt 1, qualified by my remarks Kavouss Arasteh: Generally Speaking, people responding may not pay a lot of attention to Preamble Milton: right, Kavouss Greg Shatan: (survey on preamble) CW JJS opposed 6 in support. CW: Alternative 2 is OK if there are links to Final Report and Mandate Kavouss Arasteh: i COULD AGREE WITH ALT 1 matthew shears: alt 1 is OK Parminder: I had requested to add "implementation of policy" to alt i Parminder: alt 2 for me is best Kavouss Arasteh: cAN YOU TRY aLT 1 AGAIN Seun Ojedeji: why try again @Kavouss? Mary Uduma 2: Alt 1 for me Tatiana Tropina: The check count for Alt 1 was confusing. I deleted my green check before Greg did a final count :-) Milton: Let's do another check of support for Alternative 1 Parminder: Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here Parminder: Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here Seun Ojedeji: Seun: Alt 1 prefered for preamble Tatiana Tropina: yes please put alt 1 for final check Parminder: I am fine with alt 1, but as Greg had amended on the elist Tatiana Tropina: I support both! With or without addition. :-) Greg Shatan: Preamble Alt 1 with the added text is preferred and I will put it on the list for preparation of our nest meeting. Kavouss Arasteh: vERY GOOD Kavouss Arasteh: it is done Jeff Neuman 2: I need to see the full text befor making a determination Greg Shatan: Discussing Question 1. Option 1 and 2 re Domain Name vs DNS. Milton: Alt 1 now CW: Q1: maintain DNS. that includes the root and addresses CW: Q1 maintain Privacy. Greg Shatan: Will post alternative 1 to the list as a final recommendation. Kavouss Arasteh: I CAN NOT MANIPULATE CROSS COLOUR Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Greg, there was an audio cut, I missed some of your comments. I am against most alternatives, but am in favour of Alternative 7, the one you proposed. Greg Shatan: we need to get to question 4 on our next call and I will post to the list on this. Good Call.Adjourned. Documents Presented · ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/ICANN%20Expected%…> · Chart showing alternatives for Questionnaire.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/Chart%20showing%2…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/InfluenceofExisti…>

1 0

The crusade for clarity continues
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I've been called a "crusader." (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting "US jurisdiction as such," I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit.

7 9

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #8 | 5 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #8 – 5 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ha3DAw 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) Action Items · ACTION (Dalila Rahmouni): distribute the paper to the mailing list Notes 1. Roll Call Audio only: Akinbo 2. Review of Actions items - we will invite staff to the next call, next week (Ergys from DPRD, Chris Gift) - we have a team of volunteers for the drafting of the questionnaire 3. Review of Draft questionnaire – https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKSc… - We previously discussed reducing the number of questions. - The drafting team needs to work on the document. - No comments from the group. 4. Discussion Topics - strawman document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XpXaGckf9IIYGgPKdMhBgKe8gzwruuCHgvXiz-D… - Rachel Pollack: The new bylaw provision mentioned cultural diversity on the Internet. It might be helpful to recall the definition of cultural diversity in the 2005 UNESCO convention on diversity of cultural expressions http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__portal.unesco.org_en_ev…> French version: http://portal.unesco.org/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__portal.unesco.org_fr_ev…> :) Article 4 – Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, it is understood that: 1. Cultural diversity “Cultural diversity” refers to the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies find expression. These expressions are passed on within and among groups and societies. Cultural diversity is made manifest not only through the varied ways in which the cultural heritage of humanity is expressed, augmented and transmitted through the variety of cultural expressions, but also through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution and enjoyment, whatever the means and technologies used. - Agreement that element of culture should be added. - Suggestion to continue to translate ICANN documents in several languages, in order to allow non-English speakers to get involved in the community. - Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: also i have another comment about diversity don't forget Youth involvement and engagement in ICANN is a key and important Please dont forget that diversity is not only (langage diversity,gender diversity,geographical diversity but also Youth diversity)... - Rachel Pollack: @Abdeljalil - the strawman currently refers to diversity of age. Perhaps we could add something like "and particularly youth" - RAHMOUNI Dalila: Proposal to create an office of diversity within ICANN, to collect data and make proposals to improve diversity. A paper with this proposal was shared in Helsinki, and shall be distributed again to the group, as we have several new members in the group. ACTION (Dalila Rahmouni): distribute the paper to the mailing list The office would be a tool for the group to complete its work. - Steps taken by the subgroup: 1. agree on elements of diveristy 2. look up how diversity is implemented in SO/ACs, through the questionnaire for SO/ACs 3. look into what structures should be put in place 4. assemble recommendations - Alice Munyua: working on a workgroup for the GAC on diversity, that should feed well into this subgroup's discussions. Also looking into defining regional diversity. - renata aquino: i support looking at regions - Rafik: hopes we can liaise with the GAC. - Alice: we are preparing a questionnaire, that we'll share with this group for feedback. - Amal Al-saqqaf: I think this will be clearer after GAC responds to the questionaire delivered by this subgroup - Akinbo: Regional should take into consideration indigents. Office of Diversity can address this issues with careful study over the years and recommend adoptions and solutions. - Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Comment: I think it is important that elements pointed out by the GAC group have been discussed here too. This shows the discussion can not be dismissed quickly between regional diversity and official geographic boundaries and this is the most important area of the GAC. 5. AOB - At-Large Captioning Pilot Project Will do a test during the call of Jan 13th. There will be translated captioning. Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: Dear All, We are excited to announce that Phase 2 of the Captioning pilot will start up again in January. Please pass this email to others who I have missed. If you would like to have a teleconference captioned during this second phase of the pilot please submit your request to At-Large Staff by January 1 or as soon as possible As agreed to in part 1 of the pilot, the implementation of this project will be structured as follows: Three calls to include captioning each month for a total of 6 teleconferences, not exceeding 60 minutes per call (with the exception of the ALAC Monthly Meeting) The calls shall be held between January – February 2017. Most calls will be captioned in English, with the exception of 1 in French and 1 in Spanish to be held in February Priority will be given to those groups who did not make it into the first phase. These include cross community groups such as the CCWG-Accountability and the CCWG-IG and other CCWGs To select the calls the captioning team has developed a set of criteria See further details about the captioning project on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Captioning+Pilot+Proje…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: i suggest also for the next call we could have a dial out in french channel IT IS very important Documents Presented · CCWG-AWS2DraftQuestionsonDiversity.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63155485/CCWG-AWS2DraftQue…> · DiversityStrawmanv2.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63155485/DiversityStrawman…>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6_ 05JAN17
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6 – 05 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/wp3DAw 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DgMGaQ…> ________________________________ NOTES 1. Meeting start items - review of agenda and other administrative items 2. Review and discussion of responses to Questions from ICANN - noted that some of the responses to the questions may lead to recommendations for the group to consider. - need to provide some responses to the quetions posed in the response noted documents available to the staff to describe codes and they are posted on ICANN.org web site, wondered if those documents are available for the community to review/read, assumption that they are not currently available for the community - are they private to the employess and not visible to the community? - noted the need for further review of the response - concerns raised that ICANN has a lot of process and documents in place, but who is looking into the practice of the process and what are the consequences of not following the process in place, example what happens when CEO exceeds power delegated to him, noted are things as good as ICANN would like us to believe - concerns on the devils in the details Action (Karen): see if it would be possible to have a follow-up discussion with HR - concerns expressed on the Compliance Officer being under the General Counsel's office. Action (Pam Little): send email to the list with suggestions on the Compliance Officer Questions for follow-up: - Are the staff documents/codes noted in the response privet to staff only or are they public for community review? 3. Discussion of CCWG Staff Accountability working draft draft 1.2 (Document A) - document seems to be longer than expected. - document is meant to look at the relationship between the Board, the community and the staff. - there might be perceived conflicts of interest. - there appears to be different expectations from the community of the roles of staff, board and community. - there is a basic gap between what is said and what happens in reality. - not sure what was descriptive and what was normative in this document. - concern over the isolation of the board, and isolation of the 3 groups from each other. - document is a first draft, and needs more work from the group. - competing interests within the ICANN community makes it challenging for staff to be held accountable Action (subgroup): review and edit the document by the middle of next week (Wednesday, Jan 11), add comments but also add drafting changes in suggestion mode. Jordan and Klaus will then edit the document before the next call. For document B: - hiring process should be more open 4. Schedule check - Goal is to try and close document A by the next meeting - Avri will be working on document B next week, and will send the URL to the group - sticking to the schedule discussed in the last call: • Call 19 January (19h UTC): Test agreed changes to draft Document A. Work through draft Document B • Call 2 February (13h UTC): Test agreed changes to draft Document B. Finalise Document A for CCWG Plenary. Can send A to CCWG Plenary. • Call 16 February (05h UTC): Finalise Document B for CCWG Plenary. Both Documents to CCWG Plenary • Call 2 March (19h UTC): (if necessary - incorporate feedback from Plenary?) • Face to Face Plenary - 10 March 5. AOB - Concerns raised over the fact that very limited group of people are participating. We can try to get more people involved through the plenary. -Suggestion to get emails of participants and send the URL link to participants.

1 0

[offtopic] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the ARTICLE 19, the Council of Europe, and the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights I am very happy to invite you to a ** webinar on Community top-level domains (TLDs) and human rights ** * January 18 - 15:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ * In this webinar we will present and discuss the main findings from the Council of Europe report on Community Based gTLDs and Human Rights [0] with: Facilitators: Niels ten Oever Head of Digital at Article 19 Chair of the CCWP HR Rapporteur for CCWG WS2 Human Rights sub-team Patrick Penninckx Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe Key findings: Eve Salomon, Co-Author of the report International consultant and legal expert on media law and human rights Kinanya Pijl Co-Author of the report PhD Candidate, European University, Florence Discussants: Mark Carvell GAC Vice-Chair Co-Chair GAC WG on Human Rights and International Law Chris Disspain ICANN Board Member Jamie Baxter Dotgay LLC Cherine Chalaby ICANN Board Member Avri Dora Internet Researcher Co-Chair Subsequent gTLD procedures WG We're greatly looking forward to your participation. Feel free to share this invitation widely among your constituencies and communities. All the best, Niels ten Oever [0] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/Report%20on%20Com… Please find the AC room and dial in details here: Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CCWP HR For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-466 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 PS Sorry for cross-posting -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 1