January 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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

Oct. 30, 2017

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

2 1

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

Feb. 1, 2017

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

6 8

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

Jan. 31, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 31, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 31, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

Jan. 25, 2017

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

1 0

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. 22, 2017

Jan. 22, 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. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 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

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #16 - 12 JAN 17
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Hello All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup | Meeting #16 @ 13:00 UTC - 12 January 2017 will be made available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qpnDAw For your reference, a copy of the notes are below. Thank you! 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 chat) 0. Call Administration (2-5 min CLO) * No audio only, roll call will be taken from the AC room. * No SOI updates. * Please test your audio, staff can get you a dial-out if anyone needs one 1. Review of any AI's from call #15 on December 15th * Thanks to all who were able to contribute over the break to assembling responses from the questionnaire. * Still accepting volunteers to join the team in charge of analyzing the responses. * request to change the time of 19 January @ 05:00 UTC: not possible - the 19:00 slot is not available. 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SO and AC's * have received substantial inputs * Steve DelBianco: All 7 of the responses received are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2CLsyXLvhweOVZLSWctMVhTaUU[drive.g…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_drive…> * asking Stafff to add the responses to the wiki * Brenda Brewer: already done. See SOAC documents here: https://community.icann.org/x/lBWOAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> * Steve DelBianco: We did not receive a response from ALAC or from RSSAC, as far as I can tell * Alan Greenberg: ALAC response is coming, in about 2 weeks (estimated by end of January). ALAC was busy with the review. * CW: I would like to get a heads up e-mail when a new response is received. * Cheryl: we will, probably by a message to the full list * Steve: do we know if RSSAC plans to provide a response? if not, could we reach out to them? * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we will make a follow-up with RSSAC, viable CCWG Co-Chairs (Thomas) * There are a few more constituency groups that have not responded, not sure if they will. * Thomas Rickert: We can switch to "harassement mode" to get more responses * avri doria: we have a response from NCUC, not NCSG. i will look into getting one from the NCSG ACTION (Thomas Rickert): reach out to RSSAC to find out if they will provide an answer to the SO/AC questionnaire, and get an understanding from the various GNSO subgroups of which ones plan to provide a response. * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call * sub team activities ducktale into agenda item 3 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's * Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: Cherly, as I have expressed I volunteer to be part of the drafting team. * Steve DelBianco: Our task in Track 1 is to "review and develop recommendations" on SOAC Accountability, per this Bylaw: Section 27.1. WORK STREAM 2, (b) The CCWG-Accountability recommended in its Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the Board, dated 23 February 2016 ("CCWG-Accountability Final Report") that the below matters be reviewed and developed following the adoption date of these Bylaws ("Work Stream 2 Matters"), in each case, to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report:(iii) Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee accountability, including but not limited to improved processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture; * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): huge thanks to all who have contributed to this work so far and especially Farzaneh * Steve: We have quite a bit of work to do, have to read all the responses in detail, and we need to organize our work * Who had stepped forward to help? Steve, Olga. We don't have the people to do the work on this call. * Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: There were other volunteers, maybe they are not in the call now * Michael Abejuela (ASO): I am happy to assist in this work * CW: I volunterred for something last year, but I have a holiday blank as to what exactly I was supposed to do. * Can staff go back to previous notes to see who else had volunteered? * Steve: any comments from the group on the work that was done by the drafting team so far? * Alan: we shouldn't get too much in the details in our recommendations, the intent is more important than the implementation. * Michael Abejuela (ASO): We should be careful on taking the stance of "recommending" vs. stating an observation and stating a principle of accountability for which we strive. Agree with Alan that it should not be a mandate particularly in implementation of a particular principle. * Steve: We should be explicit in what was reported. For example, with regards to decision appeal mechanisms, we could 1) identify which SO/AC have any, and which don't, 2) from there we could make the recommendation that those who don't have one consider implementing one. * Cheryl: we need to carefully weigh in if our recommendations are implementable. * Consitutency groups each have a charter. We can get inputs from these charters. * avri doria: the NCSG chater is at: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf>[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_impr…> * Sebastien (ALAC): http://www.npoc.org/media/files/NPOC_Charter_Approved_06-24-2011.pdf[npoc.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.npoc.org_media_file…> b) Overall Reporting See https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69…>] - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.------ The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 5 -----> Discussion regarding this outcome and CCWG Plenary. * Cheryl: Only 7 weeks left before Copenhagen. We would like to have a document ready in advance to send to the CCWG, in order to receive guidance from the plenary during the F2F meeting. Overall reporting document needs to continue to be updated and worked on, not only during these calls but also in between. * CW: since I shall leave the call early, please note lthat under Track 2 (MART) and Track 3 (IRP), my point of view is reflected in the draft report, so I would not support substantive amendment. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule * 19 January @ 05:00 UTC * 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 5. AOB and review of any AI's

1 0

Workstream 2 Dashboard - Dec 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Hi All - The current Work Stream 2 Dashboard for December attached. It may also be found on the Workstream 2 - Dashboard Wiki page located here: https://community.icann.org/x/tZvDAw 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>

2 1

Please do a dial out to me - + 54 11 4819 7979 CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170111 Slide deck for meeting
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Hi I cannot access Adobe Connect for some reason can you do a dial out to me? +54 11 4819 7979 Thanks Olga 2017-01-11 14:57 GMT-03:00 Yvette Guigneaux <yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org>: > Hi Vrickson – good day and Happy New Year, just resent you the CCWG > Plenary invite for today’s call – please confirm receipt. 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Vrikson > Iván Acosta-Velásquez > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:02 AM > *To:* Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross- > community(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170111 > Slide deck for meeting > > > > What is the address in adobe connect? I had to re-install > the software and I might have lost it. Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Bernard Turcotte < > turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Please find attached the slide deck we will be using for the plenary > meeting today 1900 UTC. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

2 1

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170111 Slide deck for meeting
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

All, Please find attached the slide deck we will be using for the plenary meeting today 1900 UTC. Thanks Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability

4 3

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 16 | 10 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #16 – 10 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw 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 parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (opening with 30 participants). No updates to SOIs. No audio only. 2. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Options for Question 4 Greg Shatan: (proposals for Question 4 document - staff to prep DM proposal also). Kavouss Arasteh: which version are we discussing? It is important for all of us to agree on something. DM text needs to include "mission". Parminder: I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the last call and not new David's text. Parminder: I dont agree with current David's text Milton: I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4 Parminder: but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text David McAuley: re my suggestion - I could support the GS reformulation of this. Still disagree we deal with JOI. Milton: it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call Brenda Brewer: Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here; https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw John Laprise: I support the McAuley Formulation Vidushi Marda: Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first? Steve DelBianco: I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg Mathieu Weill: Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ? Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text Parminder: We should focus on the previously presented 7 versions and could support any of these except 7. Steve DelBianco: Have not supported Q4 but in the spirit of compromise could agree to the reformulated DM question. If we cannot reach consensus on Q4 we should proceed to the plenary with the first 3 questions and advise we will continue to work on Q4. Jonathan Zuck: Agree with SDB and like the simplicity of this version. Parminder: Please put Seun’s modification on the screen, which had good support on the elist Jonathan Zuck: Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances" David McAuley (RySG): Steve makes a good point about consensus Kavouss Arasteh: not constructive to work on 7 versions. Could work with DM version with MISSION included. Milton: If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version Parminder: Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here. Milton: "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla" David McAuley (RySG): +1 Milton, I could support Greg's reformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters Philip Corwin: Agree with Jonathan Z's observation. David McAuley (RySG): by adding Mission and leaving other reformulated wording we risk confusion again Milton: simpler is better Milton: agree with David on that Kavouss Arasteh: why David Parminder: this is the wording Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." David McAuley (RySG): adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different - Steve DelBianco: @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement. Philip Corwin: "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication. Kavouss Arasteh: re-insert MISSION in square brakets and send to the CCWG-Accountability plenary and they cand decide. John Laprise: I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better. Steve DelBianco: Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission. It is about accountability mechanisms Milton: Corwin is correct Jonathan Zuck: we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again Milton: Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountability mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that John Laprise: @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic. Parminder: strong objection to not showing my or Sheun's modifications to DM's text. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY Jonathan Zuck: @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it. David McAuley: Re KA question - my concern is to avoid confusion by inserting mission. Parminder: i also put them here , puttting again Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Jonathan Zuck: if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now Milton: "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated? Steve DelBianco: ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws. It is over 700 words long. I doubt anyone could quote it by memory. Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question? Parminder: seun's text that I amended was ""Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Parminder: Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation Kavouss Arasteh: Greg. Milton: it does cover alt jurisdiction Kavouss Arasteh: If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion Milton: yes there is, Philip Corwin: As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation. Ghislain de Salins: what about the original objective of Q4 about alternative jurisdiction in DM's proposal? (explanation it is there by GS) Milton Mueler: Still want to separate Q4 but we seem to be making progress. DM proposal is very close to consensus Farzaneh Badii: If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group… Tatiana Tropina: Milton, well said. Brenda Brewer: On behalf of Seun Ojedeji: Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity. Wale Bakare: Absolutely Vidushi Marda: I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get. Parminder: Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up. Farzaneh Badii: I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more . Jonathan Zuck: agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation David McAuley (RySG): Milron cutting out now Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Milton. Parminder: need to put up Sheun and my versions. Milton: Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi sent the formulations to the email. Brenda can you put it up ? Kavouss Arasteh: lets put the DM version in front of people and get the co-chair to respond to FB. Parminder: why are you not putting up that text. Mathieu Weill: I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress Milton: As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement (Staff) displaying Sean and Parminder. Milton: Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho John Laprise: Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only. David McAuley (RySG): My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future John Laprise: Agreed John Laprise: too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy Steve DelBianco: Stick with David's original, I'd say Parminder: The future should be logically deductible form "facts" Jeff Neuman: Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three Parminder: that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work Steve DelBianco: I would not support speculation about future facts Philip Corwin: Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant. Herb Waye Ombuds: Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all. Jeff Neuman: David's language Jeff Neuman: and these 2 Jonathan Zuck: the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): argh. should sayo Jonathan Zuck: David's original Philip Corwin: Past is prologue Tatiana Tropina: David's Greg Shatan: Polling - DM original version (12 pro). Object to DM's original version (3). Going to Seun's option (4+, 11-). Last Parminder version (3+, 11-). DM modified version (2+, 8-) Philip Corwin: NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission. Mathieu Weill: Important to identifiy any *objection* Milton: just added my check a bit late Steve DelBianco: Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks. We got to 13 Steve DelBianco: If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2 David McAuley (RySG): I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first Milton: if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal Mary Uduma: we are actually arguing on trivals. avri doria: we should not use such poll to determine things. if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @Parminder fixed. Mathieu Weill: Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal David McAuley (RySG): in other words I strongly support my original proposal Parminder: thanks Vidushi Marda: Unsure what we are voting on Tatiana Tropina: yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok Philip Corwin: I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative John Laprise: +1Tatiana Jonathan Zuck: Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Phil me a Parminder: I agree with Avri's process objection Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also Kavouss Arasteh: we have our result from the polling and this should be reported to the plenary. Jeff Neuman: I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself. That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary Milton: It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus Mathieu Weill: This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting. Milton: Mathieu is right Greg Shatan: We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus? Kavouss Arasteh: This is done. Parminder: I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations. avri doria: consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such Farzaneh Badii: what is enough? Tatiana Tropina: Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)? Steve DelBianco: If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: I do not think there is consensus David McAuley (RySG): i hear beeping Mathieu Weill: Can we mute Nigel line Philip Corwin: Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question. Kavouss Arasteh: cannot qualify that consensus. avri doria: Philip, I would noot agree with that. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version avri doria: i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors John Laprise: agreed, so motioned... Philip Corwin: @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll Greg Shatan: We will go forward with the 4 questions which include DM's original version. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus Steve DelBianco: If some do not agree this is not consensus on 4 then we go ahead with 3 questions. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus avri doria: we have no consensus for sending just 3 Milton: yes we do Vidushi Marda: +1 avri Parminder: But no consensus on 1-3 either Mary Uduma: I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward. Mathieu Weill: Not necessary to reopen the debate - this is a good compromise position and thank everyone. Steve DelBianco: Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3 John Laprise: Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4 Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we had 1-3 well supported earlier Milton: +1 Mathieu Jeff Neuman: @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection. Philip Corwin: On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3 avri doria: i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus Farzaneh Badii: so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out? Wale Bakare: We have consensus on all Qs. Mary Uduma: @Parminder, not so on 1-3 Farzaneh Badii: YES! Tatiana Tropina: wow what a day Farzaneh Badii: SUCCESS Kavouss Arasteh: Appreciation to GS for the effort to get us here. Leave it as is. Still need to answer FB's question. Greg Shatan: will deal with this on the list. Adjourned.

1 0