January 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting - Wednesday 0500UTC 25 January Plenary call cancelled
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

All, The Co-Chairs have decided to cancel the Wednesday 0500UTC 25 January plenary call given there were no documents proposed for a first or second reading. Please note that our next plenary meeting will be Wednesday 1300 UTC 8 February. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #15 | 23 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #15 - 23 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/M5zDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<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 portions of the chat): 11 participants at start of call. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office Lars Hoffmann: So far 7 parties have shown initial interest but no one have completed a response yet. We would expect responses at the end of this week or early next week. If there are less than 3 responses we would extend the deadline to ensure we meet this minimum requirement. If there is an extension I will advise the group early next week. Sebastien Bachollet: Of those parties that have shown interest is there diversity? Lars Hoffmann: I do not have that information at this point. Action Items AI#1 from Call IOO-DT #14 Tasks to be handle in // with review avri doria: In Staff Acct Document B there is a specifc questions about the role of the Ombuds vis a vis staff. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnkJuukv0px-CfIDgLrjdDZa2CpBvSahPvAXdYY…> contributions from those in this group solicited and welcome. Document is open for comments and suggested text. avri doria: no need to be in Staff Acct group to comment or suggest text. Avri Doria: Presentation of Staff Acct. work. One of those questions is what is the role of the Obuds office vs staff. It would be good for SB to come to a meeting of our sub-group. Klaus Stoll: We should present our final drafts which relates to the Ombudsman to this group. Avri Doria: Agree. Herb Waye: will be discussing with ICANN Legal next week if the Ombudsman can be involved in the removal of a Director process (Good Faith sub-group). Sebastien Bachollet: Any items we need to focus on while the review is ongoing? Please advise on the list. Farzaneh Badii: I just wanted to say we have just started talking about litigation Farzaneh Badii: I will update you as soon as something related to ombuds come up AI#2 from Call IOO-DT #14 Transparency & Ombudsmen Groups Sebastien Bachollet: Agreement with MK regarding the Transparency recommendations (Ombudsman and Compalints Officer). If it goes to the complaints officer means people can still go to the Ombudsman if there is an issue. Our group needs to decide if this position is accetable for our group. Herb Waye: Re Frivolous or Vexaious DIDP requests - would be a problem if the Obudman was involved in making a decision to accept a request and then later the Ombudsman could be requested to investigate how the information was disclosed. Whenever a sub-group is considering involving the Ombudsman should look beyond independence and should consider all the attributes the Ombudsman must have. Sebastien Bachollet: My feeling is that it may be good if the Transparency drafting team decide what are the requirements of the person who will make the decisions - would be best to get a list of characteristics that are required vs selecting a solution like the Ombudsman. At the end of the WS2 work there may be a requirement for an independent party to meet the various requirements of the sub-groups. Your thoughts on this approach. Farzaneh Badii: I think the transparency group should be a little more creative and not only focus on two solutions "ombuds" or "complaint officer" for resolving denial of requests and the value it should focus on in coming up with a solution, as Herb said is independence. Herb Waye: As I have said a sub-group cannot unilaterally assign new functions to the Ombuds office without considering the requirements of that office. Sebastien Bachollet: Understood, I will go back to the Transparency sub-group to discuss our approach with them. Herb Waye: Re complaint by Ed Morris vs my participation - should the group feel there is a problem I will be glad to leave. Sebastien Bachollet: There is no issue - we have asked ICANN Legal and there is no issue - and if ever there is we will let you know. Herb Waye Ombuds: agree entirely... please feel free to challange avri doria: While you cannot decide on what the community view is, you must keep us on track about what is possible and what is improbable. AI#3 from Call IOO-DT #14 Diversity Sebastien Bachollet: Should the functions of an office of Diversity be considered by both the IOO and the Diversity sub-group Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I have no problems with this as it will be discussed - lets send to we can get it on their agenda. Sebastien Bachollet: I will forward to the Diversity sub-group. #16 Monday 06 February 2017 - 0500 AOB (none) Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #7_19January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #7 – 19 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xJ3DAw A copy of the action items and 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 · Participants to read A and B document by EOB Monday and provide comments for drafting team- JC to send reminder to list. · Staff to provide answer to sub-group on access to documents by 27 January 2017. · Klaus Stoll to draft answers to Staff Questions for consideration by group by 27 Janaury 2017. Notes (11 participants at start of call) 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check Jordan Carter: Avri Doria will not be able to join the call today. 2. Detailed discussion-seeking feedback on working draft Document A v 1.3Document, open to comments and suggested edits, Jordan Carter: JC,AD and KS have cleaned up the document from the 5th of January - still needs a lot of tidying up to get it to first reading. Asking participants to post comments on the clean version of the Google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wGRrJZ-i7WA0uYBIHaB5Q3ssqfRmbAcgHJwlQ6s… Klaus Stoll: Would ask everyone to read the document and comment so we can go into a final editing. Jordan Carter: (presentation of the structure document). Klaus Stoll: The first three sections are a rehash of existing document - as such asking a reader to go through 6 pages of introduction - so maybe we could bring our recommendations more at the beginning could be better. Jordan Carter: If a good idea we should be clear about what is standard and what is editorial from us. Anything on the Role Descriptions? (none). Anything on relationships? Pam Little: 1.3.1 Root or just the DNS? Jordan Carter: we should use standard language. Jeff Neuman: Community does not implement policy - is this correct and we should note the gNSO work on this. Jordan Carter: please share that link. So the language is not quite right yet. Back to Relationships section 2. Jeff Neuman: I will try to find a good reference Jordan Carter: Section 3 - any comments. Pam Little: second para - ending - "some important differences" could be removed as we are talking about similarities here. Jordan Carter: Section 4 - this needs quite a bit to tightening up. this gets close to the scope of this group and should be looked at in this light. Section 5 - Recommendations - I disagree with the financial indepence recommendation (registries and registrars should not fund ICANN). Pam Little: @Jeff - ICANN provided a detailed response to our questions. Jeff Neuman: I agree with removal of that bullet point Alan Greenberg: how would this funding recommendation work? Klaus Stoll: This financial relationship sometimes leads to conflicts and so we should look at better way to fund us to avoid this. Jeff Neuman: @Klaus - But you are assuming there is a problem Jeff Neuman: where is the evidence of that? Alan Greenberg: Agree there is an issue but would not resolve it this way. This resolution makes no sense as is. Klaus Stoll: If we do the second part we would be out of the scope of this sub-group. Jordan Carter: There is something there that could put pressure on staff to dealing with those participants who fund the company. Alan Greenberg: No problem with identifying the issue but the recommendation does not make sense. Jeff Neuman: We need to identify sources of information for sections 1 and 2 - otherwise causes confusion for the reader. Jordan Carter: the original longer version of this did have that and we have to bring some of that back. Phil Corwin: Agree that the financial recommendation does not make sense. Second the funds to come from registrants up though registrars and registrants. The funds are used to get a variety of participants in ICANN. We need a document that will identify remedies for issues with staff. Jordan Carter: That is for document A. Klaus Stoll: It would be good to make these comments in the documents would be very helpful. Jordan Carter: reminder to participants to please read and comment the document. 3. Initial discussion / seeking feedback on First Draft Document B - Avri is rapporteur on this Jordan Carter: Waiting for access to documents. Bernard Turcotte: Staff should have a response on thiss by the end of next week. Jordan Carter: We will not go into detail on this document here while we wait for access to the ICANN documents which would inform our work in drafting this further. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnkJuukv0px-CfIDgLrjdDZa2CpBvSahPvAXdYY… 4. Volunteers for response to Staff Questions Avri has prepared a document for answers to the questions that staff asked the group Jordan Carter: Who would like to volunteer to draft some further answers? Klaus Stoll: The answer to these questions are mostly in sections 4 and 5 of our document. I could spend some time to attempt a draft answer for us to consider. Jordan Carter: Great thanks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we need to send / resend the links to docs again to our Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): list with reminder to contribute 5. Schedule check Jordan Carter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ftd-Ps_qF46pf_iXf5foGjdUfCq64-St_43inFe… --- this is our Next Steps Jordan Carter: We are running a little late vs this schedule. We may not have docs A and B to the plenary prior to Copenhagen but should have one ready for Copenhagen. 6. AOB 1. Jordan Carter: AOB (none) – Adjourned Action Items: · Participants to read A and B document by EOB Monday and provide comments for drafting team- JC to send reminder to list. · Staff to provide answer to sub-group on access to documents by 27 January 2017. · Klaus Stoll to draft answers to Staff Questions for consideration by group by 27 Janaury 2017.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 19 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #17 – 19 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/baPDAw 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 Audio only: no participants - roll call will be taken from AC room. No SOI updates 1. Review of any AI's from call #16 on January 12th @1300 UTC Encourage more participants to volunteer to take part in the drafting team, as there is a lot of work and little time remaining before Copenhagen Very close to receiving additional response from IPC Greg Shatan: IPC response is all but final -- it's being put out for comments by membership for a couple of days and then will be submitted to this august body. 2. Updates Limited updates, suggestion to move to 3rd item of agenda 3. Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's - Methodology review and discuss, desired objectives for this track from the data capture exercise see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyUsSISvrcvotPpTCSqpAr4iqz7edoyUKPQD0ef… Farzaneh presented the categories she proposes to organize the data capture documentation. We need to agree on the methodology and start implementing. We have received responses from GNSO, ccNSO, RCC, NCUC, ISPCP, ASO, GAC and SSAC. Only 2 GNSO subgroups have not responded: NCSG and NPOC (Registries and registrars) Some responses are very specific, and others are more general Farzaneh Badii: expectation is to come up with workplan for each SO/AC? or can it just be general? coming up with recommendations for each SO/AC is a very large task, I don't know if we have the means to do that. Greg: I think that rather than customizing recommendations for each SO/AC, we should come up with best practices or overall advice, and it's up to each organization to operationalize these recommendations Alan: each group is unique, I doubt there are going to be many similarities. We can only summarise the responses. Do the responses include a self assessment, or just reflect on facts? Steve DelBianco: What Alan is describing satisfies our charter to "Review". But it does not meet our charter to "develop recommendations to improve processess" Several remarks in the chat in favor of the "best practices" approach. Steve: our initial proposal was to identify unique vs convergent mechanisms. Categorizing mechanisms as best practices is an add-on. Steve DelBianco: Once we have described best practices, our "review" could identify AC/SOs coudl benefit from moving towards the best practices. THAT could be our "recommendation. that is, we compare each AC/SO against the Best Practices, and not against each other Kavouss suggests a linear approach, ie take one question at a time in our next calls and analyze the responses to test the methodology, Steve: if we do that, let's start with an easier question, eg the Transparency question. Kavouss Arasteh: Steve , the easiest question may not represent the methodology to be agreed for difficult question. Cheryl: we shall continue our plee for more volunteers to join the drafting team. Proposed way forward: drafting team to pick 1 question to analyze in our next call. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 26 January @ 13:00 UTC • 02 February @ 19:00 UTC • 09 February @ 05:00 UTC • 16 February @ 13:00 UTC • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC Documents Presented · Data-Capture-Accountability.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153005/Data-Capture-Acco…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 20 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17 – 20 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/zKXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. 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 chat): (21 Participants at start of call) 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (no actions). 2. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: There has been some exchange on the list. No support for a “fill in the box” format. we should expect free form input which should be sent to an email address. Unclear to whom it should be sent. Kavouss Arasteh: Concerned regarding your response to FB question. I disagree with your views on this - you cannot judge on this or anything. We need an real a question. Greg Shatan: the answer sent was discussed with the co-chairs and was made in good faith. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg’s e-mail comment that these are hard to answer in abstract was right – may be better to wait for actual answers to deal with this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed David Chirstopher Wilkinson: need to have this translated into all the ICANN languages. The competition group should have a good list of email addresses. Greg Shatan: ask for staff to have the questionnaire translated. Farzaneh Badii: if we translate, does that mean that we receive answers in 6 language? and then should be translated in to English for analysis? Kavouss Arasteh: Would ask the co-chairs the respond to FB's question. Greg Shatan: KA if you have a request of the co-chairs you should make the request directly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Getting back to the questionnaire - wrt the translation - sometimes ALAC uses more than just the official languages. The costs for doing this both ways should not be much when considering ICANN language services which are excellent. Greg Shatan: Agree - small cost of language services well worth it. Farzaneh Badii: well, can we translate these questions in to a language that is not a UN language? Kavouss Arasteh: I formally request you Greg to ask co-chair to provide their answer to Frzaneh question in a formal and official manner signed by one of them on behalf of co-chairs on the mailing list Greg Shatan: where should we publish it? Kavouss Arasteh: please respond to my chat request. As to languages the 6 is fine and where to publish I am open if it is widely distributed. As to timing would request 1 month past Copenhagen meeting. Greg Shatan: KA if you wish to raise this with the co-chairs please do so directly. Kavouss Arasteh: cO-chairs need to be alerted through you for formal reply and not indirect reply Kavouss Arasteh: Deadline ,30 day<s after ICANN MEETING IN cOPENHAGWEN Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe yes as we often do it's just a matter of small cost some time extra if not specifically an internal languages one like Portuguese for example if it is anemone 'obscure' language ( and. APAC has plenty of these) they would need to outsource with additional cost and delay on delivery... a small risk if we get in a response Greg Shatan: Timing - 2 weeks after Copenhagen sufficient? where should publicize it. ICANN PC page with a link? David McAuley (RySG): the practical reason Greg mentioned makes sense for putting on comment page CW: I have seen precedent for publishing EN first and other languages shortly aftwerwards as and when Trads. are available. 3. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: KA has suggested 30 days after Copenhagen. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes plenty of precedence but ensure closing dates are equitable. CW David McAuley (RySG): 60 days from posting David McAuley - Let us just pick a number of days required. Phil Corwin: No set position but we need to provide fair opportunity for comment. Mid- April seems far away. Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: 60 days Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes all assuming 60 Tatiana Tropina: 60 days from posting, yes. Wale Bakare: 60 days from posting, when is posting? Bear in mind of ICANN58, why not after the meeting for 30 days? Kavouss Arateh: Why are we rushing not allowing people proper occastion to comment. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes but if translation takes it to publish time later than En the response time is still equitable Philip Corwin: How long can it take to translate a brief preamble and four short questions? We are not talking about a 100 page report. Wale Bakare: For sufficiency vis-a-viz translation to EN, why not pegged at 90 days irrespective? Greg Shatan: KA request about allowing govts to consult with each other so they can go back home and then produce and answer. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understand KA request. Farzaneh Badii: well I would be more worried about the difficulty of reaching out to people who might be really affected by ICANN jurisdiction Philip Corwin: I fully support adequate time for any interested party to read the questions in a major language and have adequate time to respond. That needs to be balanced against the fact that we need to review and discuss the answers and determine their relevance and import for our work, and if the closing date is mid-April that means we don't see answers until a quarter of a year from now. Greg Shatan: Really only talking about two weeks of difference. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg we are talking a 2w difference Kavouss Arasteh: text says 30 should be corrected. Greg Shatan: temp. check on April 13 - split. April 1 (3 for 2 against). Let us remember that responses can be made late and considered. Let’s take this to the list. Philip Corwin: Given that standard ICANN response time on a major policy proposal is 40 days, I think 40 days after publication in all languages is sufficient for 4 questions Philip Corwin: I co-chair a PDP WG that is about to publish a 100+ page report for comment, and that only gets the standard 40 days. 4. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Doing this would be very good and allow us to consider issues wrt Jurisdiction of disputes. David McAuley: support this but would suggest we ask Jones Day to come and present to us on this topic which could really help us. Greg Shatan: Good suggestion. Kavouss Arateh: Good suggestion. Greg Shatan: Some suggestions from Mathieu Weill - identify the Jurisdiction the case was brought in, the type of claim, the rate of success, temporary relief and duration of the process. Jones day could help with this. Any other comments on how to get this done. Kavouss Arasteh: These are good ideas let us proceed. David McAuley: After Jones day - a smaller group of us could go through summaries fairly efficiently. Greg Shatan: we should create a small group to manage this work. Will get vol. from the list. David McAuley (RySG): I would volunteer Kavouss Arateh: would volunteer but cannot type much with operation on hand. Avri Doria: can help. Phil Corwin: will participate. 5. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… (no time for this item) 6. AOB (none) 7. Adjourn Next call on 24 JAN. 1300

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup: Expense Request for Questionnaire Translation
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

Dear Co-Chairs, At today's meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup, the Group decided to request that the Questionnaire (attached) be translated by the ICANN Language Service. At a minimum, the Questionnaire would be translated into the 6 ICANN working languages; if the ICANN Language Service has the capability to translate into other languages, it is possible that the Subgroup may wish to have the Questionnaire translated into one or more additional languages. It is expected that some costs will be allocated to the CCWG for performing this service. Therefore, on behalf of the Subgroup, I am seeking your approval to incur the expense of translation. These costs are not expected to be material. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this request. In any event, I will seek an estimate of time and costs from Language Services. Thank you for considering this request. Best regards, Greg Shatan

3 2

Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Although it is uncertain exactly when the questionnaire for Jurisdiction and the public comment for Human Rights will actually be published the Co-Chairs would suggest that the closing date for both of these be after the Copenhagen meeting. The reasoning behind this is that at best the standard 42 days consultation period would end immediately prior to the Copenhagen - this would imply chartering organizations and community members would be considering this while they are preparing for Copenhagen - which as Cheryl Langdon-Orr has pointed out on our last plenary is not an ideal situation. Additionally staff would not have enough time to prepare the report on these for our consideration in Copenhagen. Additionally the jurisdiction questionnaire is meant to be considered by a wider community and as such it would be good to extend the standard period to 60 days to allow everyone ample opportunity to answer the questionnaire. As such we would recommend that the closing period for the Human Rights public consultation be Sunday 19 March 23:59 UTC and that the Jurisdiction questionnaire request responses within 60 days of the initial publication. Thank you in advance for your feedbacks on this proposal. Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

8 12

Notes, recordings, transcript for Reviewing the CEP Subgroup Meeting #3_ 11 January 17
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 18, 2017

Jan. 18, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #3 – 11 January 17 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/JqvDAw 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: (including relevant portions of the chat): Introduction, Attendance, Regrets, SOI’s • Brief agenda, small group • Roll call will be taken from AC room • Apologies: Sam Lanfranco Review • View presented initially that benefit of CEP was that it was informal • Suggestion from plenary for a more structured negotiation, with a 3rd party • Question to this group: is this the direction we want to go? Mediation, Conciliation, Negotiation: Structured Negotiation • Anna: if we go this direction, we'd need more people or review previous CEP to hear their opinion • Structured negotiation: would would pay for it? Examination of past CEPs: What and How • Ed Morris: I asked the question to ICANN Legal and haven't received any response. I will go through Leon and the Legal. Committee to try to get some responses. • How do we want to go about examining past CEPs? • Anna Loup: a targetted survey could work, and I am in LA if it is necessary to be physically present at ICANN at any point • Ed: would you be willing to volunteer to prepare such a survey? • Anna: ok, happy to help. I'll look into alternative methods as well. it's too early for me to think of unique methods. Way Forward • We've had a participation issue from the beginning. Ed will bring it to the plenary today to try to get more folks. • Ed will send an email to the list with questions raised today, and suggested way forward.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #13 - 13 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 13, 2017

Jan. 13, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #13 – 13 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/OJfDAw 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. Introduction/Roll/SOI 2. Discussion re Timing issue David McAuley: Here is link to Kathy Kleiman blog: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170110_fairness_due_process_require_changes… David McAuley: And here is link to Milton’s blog: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/07/putting-your-rights-on-the-clo… David McAuley: How we can proceed going forward - 3 main tasks in what is now more of an operational role. Two main dates for us 25 January as the closing date of the public consultation and March 10 to report to the plenary on our progress. Have asked staff to look at meeting dates. There is no need to meet on the phone until a few weeks after the PC closes. Greg Shatan: Logistical Week of February 13th is the meeting on the non-contracted parties in Reykjavik. Substantive point if the public comment is closing on the 25th why wait a month? We need to get into this ASAP. David McAuley: I believe there will be two main issues from the public consultation - Timing and Joinder of Parties. Let us book a meeting on1900 Thursday 9 February 2017 and cancel the 27 January IRP-IOT meeting (Action Item for Staff). Malcolm Hutty: We will either accept the Sidley proposal or amend it. Sidley's evaluation that our proposal did not do what we expected and that this was inconsistent with the Bylaws. I would be ok with their proposal but want to wait to see the comments. David McAuley: MH do you plan to put in a comment? Malcolm Hutty: I will but it will now be much shorter considering the Sidley response. David McAuley: Any other comments on the timing issue. Samantha Eisner: We are looking at the Sidley response and we will be commenting on this given we may be talking past each other on the timing issue. Greg Shatan: The IPC comment is primarily about how the timing interacts with other procedures especially when it becomes clear an IRP may be filed. It may be more about procedure than rules. Also, unclear how this interacts with the CEP. Unclear how timing would work with the rules for the Empowered Community which could be incompatible. David McAuley: Re CEP RySG should make a similar comment. 3. Draft information letters to SOs/ACs and PTI customers David McAuley:Now draft letters to SOACs? Any questions? (none) will proceed with these. Greg Shatan: Want to avoid giving the impression that the work is all done. May want to add a sentence to clarify we are working in parallel. David McAuley: Agree, will do and circulate to the group for approval (Action Item for DM). 4. Comments forum (https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/[forum.i…) David McAuley: Kathy Kleiman will be providing a comment based on her blog. Would encourage everyone to keep abreast of the submissions in the comment forum. 5. IRP IOT next meetings - 19:00 UTC Thursday 9 February. 6. AOB David McAuley: No AOB - Adjourned. Summary of Action Items: · Staff to cancel IRPIOT meeting of 1300 27 January 2017 and schedule Thursday 1900 9 February 2017.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #11 | 11 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Plenary Meeting#11 – 11 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mZTDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. 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 portions of the chat): 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour Mathieu Weill: No changes to SOI. 2. Administration • Update on IRP-IOT Public Consultation (3 commenters, closes 25 January 2017) • Update on travel funding for ICANN58 and ICANN 59 • Reminder CCWG-Accountability Face to Face in Copenhagen is Friday 10 March 2017(visa reminder). · Bernard Turcotte: PCST has emailed the November report to the list. We are doing well from a budget POV. Will be happy to take questions off-line or on the list. 3. Legal Committee Update Leon Sanchez: No ongoing or new requests. Reminder to all sub-groups to look at advice received for other sub-groups as it could answer questions. Kavouss Arasteh: Reminder re Applicable Law - Footnote for FOIHR regarding Applicable Law - depending on results of Jurisdiction sub-group may cause a need to revise this in the HR - otherwise there may be contradictions. 4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Guidelines for Good Faith – For Information Lori Schulman: We have tried to keep it short and sweet and could be easily used by the community. Just to be clear this is about protecting the community if they are trying to remove a director by providing indemnity - which would require good faith. ICANN Legal is reviewing. Presentation of the report. Thomas Rickert: Re first reading issue - agenda was approved by the co-chairs. Alan Greenberg: We were expecting this to be for information and a first reading at the next plenary. Thomas Rickert: Understand but we are on a tight time frame. Would suggest we call this a first reading? Robin Gross: so we aren't do 2 readings anymore, just 1? because the first one isn't final? interesting change of meaning of important words. Lori Schulman: Alan, as an FYI, I had omitted a requirement that we had discussed. I simply added it. Your point is well taken. Kavouss Arasteh: Not a first reading. Lori Schulman: I also don't consider this "ready" until we get the legal opinion. Alan Greenberg: Sub-group has not approved. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan on this. Robin Gross: so do I Robin Gross: Avri, it does seem like w are rushing to meet arbitrary deadlines Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): how much in advance should we hope/ask for papers? Christopher Wilkinson: At least one week, if more than ten pages Lori Schulman: I think that is an excellent question. What is appropriate notice? I did not read all of the documents either. avri doria: i think after the next first reading we may be able to decide that it is really a second reading. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree Thomas - legal review is not the issue. Lori Schulman: Thomas, so I am unclear as to what is decided. Thomas Rickert: Given LS has withdrawn the document this is not a first reading. Will remind the group that a legal review was often conducted after our documents were completed in WS1. • Human Rights o Second reading Niels Ten Oever: Let us go over the document. Any Comments on Within Scope... (none). Respecting (no comments) Internationalized HR (no comments) As required by Applicable Law - KA over to you. Kavouss Arasteh: Reference to Applicable Law - would like to explain this when you reach this. applicable law is part of two sub-groups Jurisdiction and HR. Suggest we include a foot note on HR (see above). Leon Sanchez: would suggest modifying Jurisdiction if needed. Milton Mueler: ICANN has no requirement to implement if not per applicable law? Milton Mueller: Niels, what if respect for an internationally recognized right is NOT "required by applicable law" - does that mean ICANN policies can ignore it? Erich Schweighofer: I would say, yes, Milton. ICANN applies international obligations as the national laws sees it. Brett Schaefer: Milton, that is my understanding for why the phrase "this Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create... " language was included. Robin Gross: We need to find an interpretation of this phrase that can put some actual teeth in it. avri doria: and ICANN is deciding to not accept any further obligation. Tatiana Tropina: It’s a balancing act. Leon Sanchez: It would be useful to get feedback from the wider community. Hence, I would suggest we continue the second reading and publish for public comment and then come back to the issue based on feedback received. Does that sound reasonable? Milton Meuler: People are concerned this will push ICANN beyond its mission but my question is IF it is IN mission is ICANN obliged to do so. Robin Gross: Free speech rights and privacy rights are generally obligations states hold (not corporations), so does this recommendation mean those rights don't apply at ICANN (since applicable law does not require them)? Tatiana Tropina: No we can't. May be for good, if you are criticising me avri doria: yes Leon, the fact that this point is an open point has been made. David McAuley (RySG): I think Kavouss raised an important point. At the end the CCWG plenary should issue a document indicating the limits of each subgroup document – some are written broadly and could be read as dealing with other subgroup matter. Greg Shatan: Mission and Core Values are two different things - Mission ICANN has to do - CV's have to be balanced between each other. Robin Gross: sounds free speech and privacy are out, then. wow. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Please note there is a basis for filing a Limited Public Interest Objection to a gTLD application based on Human Rights so that was already in the Applicant Guidebook. (comment unrelated to Milton's comment re IRP) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel there is a distinction between the legal obligation (defined by applicable law) and the core value, which goes beyond just the legal obligation (ICANN not only commits not to violate HR but also commits to take them into account). Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with both LS and DM suggestions and can live with either. As to the MM question GS has done a great job explaining this. Greg Shatan: There are plenty of human rights laws that protect free speech and privacy, and not just by states. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JOrge - I felt the same way but the ByLaw says that ICANN cannot be required to go beyond requirements of applicable law so I don't think an IRP can be based on this commitment. Tatiana Tropina: with example of the content regulation - clearly if something outside of the mission it's outside of the mission and that's what bylaw and FoE say Greg Shatan: @Jorge, the Core Value is limited by applicable law, so it does not go beyond the legal obligation. Leon Sanchez: suggest we complete the second reading so we can go to public comment using my earlier suggestion. Neils Ten Oever: Core Value does not create (no comment). Brett Schaefer: How do you resolve conflicts in applicable law given ICANN operates in multiple jurisdictions? Not expecting this to be resolved in this document but wish to know if this was discussed? Leon Sachez: lets take this offline. Robin Gross: still sounds like no change for HR at ICANN Tatiana Tropina: Greg don't scare people away :) If we look at the definition of respect - avoid violations and take into account in developing policies Greg Shatan: @Tatiana, correct; we don't need to invoke any Core Value if ICANN is operating outside its Mission. Greg Shatan: @Tatiana, true, tehre is still a positive obligation created by the Bylaw. That is the major change. Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: Please take this question offline! Tatiana Tropina: yes, thereis a major change - positive obligation Greg Shatan: Inapplicable question on applicable law? Niels Ten Oever: completes the second reading. Kavouss Arasteh: Thomas +1 David McAuley (RySG): agree with Tatiana that the new HR bylaw is an important addition Milton Mueller: positive obligation to take HR "into account"? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Erich - at least in theory, there should be no "different applicable laws". And certainly "applicable law" does not mean pick a law that is applicable in most jurisdictions - that is not at all the meaning of the term. Tatiana Tropina: but they are transposed into the national laws anyway. David McAuley (RySG): The term applicable law is a part of the bylaw itself, not just the FOI - we cannot write it away. Robin Gross: that's what I'm saying, Tatiana, since HR like free speech and privacy only apply to states, they are irrelevant under this definition Milton Mueller: Tatiana: ICANN is the "state" for internet identifiers Erich Schweighofer: @Anne: data protection is a strong real example ... Privacy Shield etc. Brett Schaefer: Again, I would appreciate a link to the documents where this was discussed if someone can forward it to me. Thx. Tatiana Tropina: Milton, we can't make international instruments applicable to ICANN by this bylaw this is legally ridiculous to me Milton Mueller: sure, we can. as a private org, ICANN can pass a bylaw that says "we will adhere to HR" Tatiana Tropina: what we can is to create a negative obligation to avoid HR violations and a positive obligation to take HR into consideration in policy making, and limit all this with the mission so no one will use HR for content regulation or whatever Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Milton: I seem to remember some debate about this is WS1 Milton Mueller: it can also pass a bylaw that says everyone who works for it must dye their hair green Tatiana Tropina: Milton, that's what is done. See about positive obligation core value. Robin Gross: ICANN wants to engage in global governance, but doesn't want any of the obligations of those who govern. Milton Mueller: ok, so you are saying it is done, not that it is "legally ridiculous" Leon Sanchez: Any objections to taking this to public comment (none) Would ask staff to move this to public comment and advise the group when it goes up. o Scope issue Leon Sanchez: Annex 6 and 12 approach WS2 Human Rights in different ways and the sub-group is asking for guidance from the plenary (see report posted by sub-group on this). Co-chairs will consider this and propose a solution to the group. Any objection to proceeding as such? (none) • Jurisdiction Questionnaire Greg Shatan: This version has changed since the last time. Review of the questions. Kavouss Arasteh: GS has done a great job and recommend we accept this delicate balance. If we open this again we will be at it for quite a while. Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): the questionnaire looks sensible to me, it would be good to get it out there and see what people think / contribute. Mathieu Weill: KA good advice thanks. I think we simply have to test if there are major objections "die in the ditch". Greg Shatan: Thank you, Kavouss. Erich Schweighofer: Well said, Kavouss. Robin Gross: We may need to add the "die in the ditch" test to the ICANN dictionary :-) Christopher Wilkinson: strong support for KA recommendation. Philip Corwin: What I observed in a WG email is that no matter how carefully we try to word a question those responding to it usually feel free to go beyond its scope in their answer. And that wording of questions is not of the same degree of importance as wording of final recommendations, so the degree of precision required is less. Alan Greenberg: I am not a participant in the group but have been following the mailing list. We do NOT want to send this back to the sub-group. Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): let's get it out there Robin Gross: Let's send it out! Keith Drazek: No objection in its current form. Philip Corwin: Stick a fork in these questions, Not only are they done, they are well done. Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-chair: Let's put it out! Farzaneh Badii: Yes, lets send them out Mathieu Weill: no objections to publishing. Congratulations to all involved and especially GS for his persistence. • Transparency – Second reading Michael Karanicolas: (presentation of the document). Leon Sanchez: Congrats to the group for the great work. Brett Schaefer: On page 10 of the transparency report I read a reference to the IRP, “Among the most important aspects of a robust right to information system is an effective, user-friendly and timely process for appealing against refusals, redactions, breaches of timelines, and other administrative failures. Our present understanding is that these appeals will be carried out under the IRP process, currently in its final stages of development.” I saw recent discussion on the lists about how an IRP challenge would not be possible one year after the decision. Would this limitation undermine the effort to make the DIDP more robust? David McAuley (RySG): The timing of claims issue is under comment and discussion Brett and IOT has received some outside counsel advice. David McAuley (RySG): I can't speak for IOT as a group but would not be surprised by some change Christopher Wilkinson: great report and here are a few points I need to make: detail seems to go too far and not implementable - we do not want to paralyze the organization through transparency requirements. This is not meant to be against transparency but things have to be balanced. Re procurement again the report seems to go too far. formalized GAC actions? we need to remove Formalized given most interactions with ICANN staff are informal. Leon Sachez: very valuable comments but could be made in the public comment period. second readings are thumbs up or down. Robin Gross: well one of the specific transparency issues we have agreed to do was get more transparency in governments interactions with ICANN. So naturally we don't want to cut that out in another part of the document. Edward Morris: @Brett. Agree this should be an area of concern. However, how would reconsideration play into this appeals process and how would the time factor then be affected? Michael Karanicolas: Hi. Thx for that Christopher, I can respond to a couple of points quickly here Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: @Robin: to be fair, we identified it would be further investigated. We did not test consensus on it as a requirement. The public comment will be a good test Michael Karanicolas: First - regarding open contracting and publishing competing bids. In terms of its workability - I can tell you this is done routinely in the public sector. Sebasiten Bachollet: the Ombudsman sub-group had not focused on the transparency document where there are links to the Ombudsman. We discussed these links at our last meeting and there are potential issues with the transparency recommendations which link to the Ombudsman. This goes to how to handle overlapping issues. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx for raising this Sebastien especially as Herb is not here today Robin Gross: Mathieu, it was a specific issue we decided in WS1 Michael Karanicolas: We cite municipal governments that do this as a matter of policy: Richmond VA is the example we listed, but it's relatively common Robin Gross: that we would work on in WS2 Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: We decided to investigate it in WS2, I fully agree. Robin Gross: public comments overwelmingly called for more transparency on governments interactions with ICANN, no? Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: There were several comments asking for it. I try not to use qualifiers such as "overwhelming" Brett Schaefer: @Ed, I'm not sure. That is why I asked the question. Steve DelBianco: Robin is correct. CCWG calls for "Transparency of ICANN’s interactions with governments". this is part of the mandate Robin Gross: that is my understanding as well. and the simple text of the WS1 report. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: It is part of the mandate, as one of our focus points Steve DelBianco: this WS2 project is supposed to say HOW to do that reporting, not to say WHETHER ICANN must report its interactions with governments Robin Gross: I know, it sounds like some want to undo that recommendation now. Brett Schaefer: Agree with Robin and Steve. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: This discussion is premature, we'll take it offline. Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): I feel that trying to subject any informal contacts to such level of scrutiny is quite counterproductive, is not agreed in the Marrakech consensus and is divisive Steve DelBianco: Chris is right. the WS2 Transparency group should give recommendations about which types of govt interactions should be reported, and how Kavous Arasteh: Support CW wrt FORMALIZE. Michael Karonicolas: re CW points. re documenting govt interactions. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it would be - in any case - wise to disclose these government interactions. If they are not disclosed and come to light later, governments that are not consulted will want to take action against DNS issues through legislation in their own States that apply to ICANN. Robin Gross: I agree, Anne. Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): I feel the word "formalized" should be at least square-bracketed Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge +1 Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): no objection from me Chris Wilson: ok to bracket Greg Shatan: Is the point that interactions that are already formalized should be transparent, or that all ICANN/GAC (or other state) interactions be formalized? Kavouss Arasteh: If we brackt it when it will be debracketed or deleted? Robin Gross: I don't see them as mutually exclusive, Greg. We can make improvements on both transparency goals. Chris Wilson: bracket = up for further discussion Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I definitely think that ICANN should not be having closed meetings with regional and/or national governments without the public knowing when and why. Robin Gross: it is two different ways of achieving the same goal: transparency in govt interaction with ICANN Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): Kavouss, I prefer to delete "formalized"... Michael Karanicolas: If the sticking point is just the word "formalized", perhaps we can resolve here and publish. Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): Transparency should cover interactions with private lobbysts/interests which may have potential impact on decision-making... Leon Sanchez: Open issues brought up here should be taken to the list and we would ask the Transparency sub-group to organize a joint meeting with the Ombudsman group to iron out any remaining issues. Christopher Wilkinson: This seems to not be ready for public consultation - would need input from ICANN staff on the applicability given there is a require for too much detail. Sebastien Bachollet: need to complete properly before publishing for public comments. David McAuley: am concerned about the interactions between the sub-groups and we, plenary, need to manage this to avoid conflicts. Leon Sanchez: seems we are not ready for public consultation. Let us work on getting the Transparency and Ombudsman sub-groups working together and discuss the open items on the list. 5. Review of Schedule/Timeline Thomas Rickert: we are slipping significantly. There is no guarantee we can continue past ICANN 59 - We have to decide if we are going to warn the community that we may want to extend. It seems fairly obvious from our discussions today that we will have delays. Kavous Arasteh: Agree with TR. we need to reduce confrontations and focus on reasoned discussions. Alan Greenberg: Support TR and KA - vs the budget - as a chartering org I can say we did a best effort - but we need to take the time to look at the overall package so that it makes sense and is a quality product that will not bring unintended consequences. Thomas Rickert: Agree but we are in a test phase of a new way for the community to work with ICANN. Robin Gross: right, Alan, I didn't think we were tying our hands, just trying to provide a n estimate, which may need to be revised. Greg Shatan: I think that a "two sizes fit all" approach to timeframes was unlikely to work for all 9 groups. Robin Gross: When we start with unrealistic timeframes, we can't be surprised when turn out to be too ambitious. Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): we should be honest: we were exhausted by the WS1 process, the uncertainty around the transition delayed us, and those are both real things Mathieu Weill: Started WS in July in Helsinki - 7 months in the process and by Copenhagen we will have shifted by two ICANN meetings = 9 months. We need to be very clear as to what we want to do and we need and I would be in favour of saying to the chartering orgs that we will be taking longer and put in a realistic timeline - and we should begin this discussion at our next meeting. Greg Shatan: If you look at the average timeframes for the CWG and CCWG, or for GNSO Working Groups, the timelines were aggressive, to say the least. Jorge Cancio (Switzerland): +1 Greg Robin Gross: I like to refer to them as "fantasy timelines", Greg. Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): I believe we COULD get the substnative work done by June, but the thing is, we would be making huge demands of the rest of the community to focus on accountability issues at Copenhagen and even more at the Joburg meeting. I don't think that would lead to the best input, and so to the right quality of outcomes. avri doria: there is really no relationship between the multistakeholder model and project management Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): I do not see any reasonable case for us not managing to get this over the line in this calendar year tho. Alan Greenberg: We are not talking about a year! At worst, it would be one ICANN meeting. Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): just my 15c worth :) Philip Corwin: Agree with Jordan and Greg, plus you never have a real sense of how long these WGs will take until you get into the work and fully comprehend the issues to be tackled. Greg Shatan: We need to look at participation levels (on different types of participation), membership in multiple subgroups, etc. Seun Ojedeji: The aggressive mode also justify the need to have significant time to review the full package once its ready. David McAuley (RySG): IMO WS2 has been hampered a bit by low subgroup participation rates, perhaps inevitable. But maybe we need to have a plan to kick in full CCWG near April if needed. Greg Shatan: The most accountable and transparent thing to do is to be honest about our progress. Julf Helsingius: I agree avri doria: makes sense to be transparent about it. Greg Shatan: "We're not late until the deadline passes" is not a good model. Or so I tell my kids about their homework. avri doria: why it happened, what we are doing to fix it, and how much longer , for example Thomas Rickert: would ask the rapporteurs to revise the timelines so we can get documents out for public consultation ASAP. Kavouss Arasteh: The more time we give the more time we take. Greg Shatan: Yes, we should also be thinking about how to fix it, what needs to be tightened up, etc. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: I'm interested to hear views on "what we're doing to fix it", or what we should do to fix it. Greg Shatan: On the other end of the spectrum, we need to avoid sprawl. Agree with Kavouss. avri doria: doing more of the same, only harder, may not be the answer Greg Shatan: Tightening focus is one of the solution vectors. Greg Shatan: Work smarter, not harder... 6. AOB Thomas rickert: AOB (none) Adjourned. Summary of Action Items: · Good Faith o Good faith subgroup to review and present to the plenary as 1st reading at the next plenary · HR o FOI :Staff to move the FOI to public comment and advise the plenary when it goes up. o SCOPE :Co chairs, liaising with the rapporteur, to propose a solution to the plenary. · Jurisdiction o Staff to prepare publication of the questionnaire and advise the plenary when it goes up. · Transparency o Subgroup rapporteurs to share list of open discussion items for consideration on the plenary mailing list o Staff to set up a joint meeting between Ombud group and Transparency group to review interdependencies · Timeline o Action item : Rapporteurs to submit revised timelines to the co-chairs

1 0