February 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #13 | 24 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #13 – 24 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/y5zRAw 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) [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 15 Participants at start of call 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items Rafik Dammak - resend of questionnaire was not sent but it has been updated. Would look for approval on the list before Copenhagen. Report from Chris Gift was distributed to the list - this will be discussed at a later meeting whe CG is available. 3. Review of Draft Report: - Issues list Rafik Dammak: ""2.6 Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available. Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have higher probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation. "" Rafik Dammak - review of SKILLS discussion. Let us try and agree on text today. Sebastien Bachollet - I would like to express the reverse of some of the opinions. As I have stated skills you can always learn - diversity you cannot change a person. Rachel Pollack: The current wording seems much better to me. Building on what Sebastien said, perhaps the text could add an element related to the need for capacity building to further develop skills Fiona Asonga - Diversity of skills can be looked from different angles - can also mean that there is a mix of those that have skills with those that have less - those with a lack of skill will have an impact on discussions and decisions - so for me it is about ensuring there is a balance. We have to include the will and capacity to learn as part of the skill equation - need balance. Rafik Dammak - Like evaluating candidates for a job - you do not always get people with everything - need diversity to avoid group-think. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Will note strongly disagree with the idea that there is no opposition between skills and diversity. If we do not redouble efforts on diversity until there is some balance is achieved - otherwise we will keep to what is now - this is not acceptable. Julie Hammer - Want to clarify - people seem to think that this para is a standalone element of diversity - it is not - this is just one of the components of the entire report - this skill discussion is a part of the entire report. Mathieu Weill: +1 Julie, let's not get carried away. Rafik Dammak - Agree with JH we should not make too much of this. Sebastien Bachollet - I prefer a group with more diverstiy and less skills vs a highly skilled group with less diversity. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Agree w/ Sebastien mal Al-saqqaf: The nature of the position decides whether a specific skill is required or it's better to have diverse skills. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Sebastien, it is not about diversity OR skill, it is about diversity of skills. Everybody has some skills! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Julie, however, those who do get hired/selected do not represent diversity Renata Aquino Ribeiro: The stats are on the document itself avri doria: no amount of capacity training will give me the POV of an African.and thus i will never be able to bring the type of skill someone frm that region can bring. Sebastien Bachollet - its not just a question of diversity - its about diversity of POV is critical. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I agree it's not about any regional or aspect of diversity specific versus skill.. Yes, the POV is just not taken into account avri doria: and skill & experience ate dependent on POV. Mathieu Weill: We're still missing clarity on what we mean by skills. Tech skills ? Legal skills ? Which ones ? Negotiation skills, Reading & speaking English ? Project management skills ? avri doria: yes all of those and any other skill that may be discovered as needed some day in the future. Mathieu Weill: I agree with Avri that Point of View diversity is as required as skill Renata Aquino Ribeiro: all of those and the disproportional value they are given to some privileged groups Rafik Dammak - Example of Board requirements from the NomComm. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - We really need to focus on diversity or nothing will ever happen. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: trying to sum up what I've said for notes: when one thinks about high-level selection, there's a high value given to centennial universities on the resumé or dot-com experiences, some people who meet the diversity criteria will not have that but bring other things and can be even better with the opportunity for capacity building Renata Aquino Ribeiro: and yes Rafik you summed up well too Julie Hammer - At this point in the report we are simply trying to explain what we mean for these various elements - and we are not trying to say what the situation is or should be - we are simply trying to explain what it is as a group we understand the term to mean - it is for later in the report whre we should be evaluating what it actually those elements of diversity mean in each of the elements of ICANN. Amal Al-saqqaf: +1 Julie Rafik Dammak - So JH is saying we can define things here and there is room later on for recommendations on all aspects including skills. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Yes, that's correct! FIONA ASONGA: +1 Julie Sebastien Bachollet - Skills are just one of the 7 types of diversity and all have to be taken into account. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation. "" Renata Aquino Ribeiro: last phrase of the paragraph Julie Hammer (SSAC): - That was not the intended meaning! If it is read in context of the report that it would not suggest that meaning. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Julie Rafik Dammak - Following up on SB we may need to add text to state that all elements of diversity have to be considered vs putting too much weight on this para? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes, make that a binding clause or yes, isolated, this wipes out the other efforts Rafik Dammak - seems to be support to include text proposed by JH so I will include both in the document and I will add at the end of the section the need to consider all the elements. maybe SB will provide some chapeau text for this section as he proposed. Lousewies van der Laan: A chapeau is a great idea - its used in treaties and helps get everyone on the same page Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Yes Renata Aquino Ribeiro: the text has this added phrase "If an original assessment of candidates is not sufficiently diverse to fulfill the skill, experience and diversity requirements necessary, then efforts need to be redoubled until diversity is achieved. Among those efforts, strengthening capacity building mechanisms for the skills required." Rafik Dammak - let us move this to the list this way and hopefully we can reach consensus on this point. (no objection). Any other elements to discuss? There has been some mention of ANTI-DISCRIMINATION any thoughts about this given there are already some rules about this in ICANN. Lousewies van der Laan - talking about what the grounds are for considering discrimination? (yes). If you start making a list it has to be very inclusive but there is a risk you will miss something - a more general statement can be more useful - we should decide what we want to do with this. Maybe we should go beyond DISCRIMINATION and move more towards other things such as being welcoming. We should list the DISCRIMINATION elements that are in ICANN. Rafik Dammak - Good point LVDL. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lists can be problematic IMO avri doria: well we can use the 'inter alia' construction i.e including by not limited to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): YES that helps if lists are essential... Herb Waye Ombuds: well said Lousewies avri doria: a comprehensive hite list is as hard to build as a bloack list. a comprehensive hite list is as hard to build as a black list. Dalila Rahmouni: As written by Julie, non-discrimination and diversity are different. FIONA ASONGA: I think we are assuming that the diversity mechanism is for leadership. That is just one aspect of ICANN it is also for the community and staff. I think we need to bear that braod perspective in mind Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): an affirmative approach is indeed my preference here as well... good points Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I like the idea of referencing good practices, safe spaces too... Good practices should be highlighted avri doria: and the bylaws to not include a non discimantory policy other than Section 2.3. NON-DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENTICANN shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for Fiona Asonga - we seem to be concentrating on diversity for leadership but our mandate is to look at diversity for all elements of ICANN. Rafik Dammak: thanks Avri, we can refer that in our document avri doria: so according to the bylaws discrimination is the service of competition seems ok. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Fiona, that has always been my view, it is not just about leadership positions. Dalila Rahmouni: Non-discrimination is part of Human Rights as Diversity a requirement avri doria: also in core values: v) Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently, neutrally, objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment (i.e., making an unjustified prejudicial distinction between or among different parties); and lousewies: I agree Fiona ! well said Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes indeed avri doria: the equal employment policy is very vanilla and a std doc for incororated entities.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4C745NEsGNqd3N1ZXl0dVpVX2s the equal employment doc Renata Aquino Ribeiro - status on office of diversity? Are we trying to develop a list of grounds for discrimination? Rafik Dammak - It has been added to the document but we have not discussed it further. Additionally SB has sent a document about the Offices to the plenary list. Our document is open for comments and suggestions - ask everyone to contribute to the document and on list. As to the list it seems that there is a preference to have a general statement vs a list. avri doria: it should be accesible. Dalila Rahmouni: the proposal is the document page 8 Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes about complaints and ombudsman offices etc Dalila Rahmouni: Yes, suggestions are welcomed Renata Aquino Ribeiro: ok thanks Renata Aquino Ribeiro: about LW points on discrimination what was the stand again? Fiona Asonga - have noted the various comments and will integrate in the document. Rafik Dammak - thanks all and Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 21 | 23 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #21 – 23 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/TJDRAw A copy of the notes and action items 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) [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Action Items: * GS to complete editing of questions for ICANN Legal and forward to CCWG-Accountability for review. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 15 Participants at start of call – 29 at halfway mark 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: no changes to SOIs. Agenda accepted. 2. Questionnaire Update a. Method for processing responses Christopher Wilkinson - Would be useful to have staff collate and classify. Greg Shatan - Would be useful to have staff do this. 3. Scope, Timeline and Work Product of Subgroup Greg Shatan - We are late - would be good to get back on track. Will try to put together a timeline for your consideration. As to work product we have a number of documents that are all half-finished such as the Hypothetical. I am also thinking that we could possibly talk iteratively about remedies to some of the issues - i.e. the question of immunity. David McAuley - thank you for these comments. Part of our challenge is the unfortunate language on jurisdiction in Annex 12. We may need to discuss scope again. wrt hypotheticals I do not agree - it is about the future that is uncertain - best to consider past and documentd cases. wrt influence of existing jurisdcition is a task for us and we may need to look at it again. Kavouss Arasteh - (unclear on which point we are on, request clarification). Do not agree we do not look at the future we need to look at the future so disagree with DM. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): discussing scope will get us back into circles... let's wait for the feedback to the questionnaire Tatiana Tropina: discussing the scope can wait till we collect the responses, however, I agree with David re future and predictions vs. actual analysis on the basis of what already happened matthew shears: agree with David on looking at the past litigation rather than hypothetical Tatiana Tropina: Matt, yes, this might also help solving the scope problem David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Kavouss - interesting point which I will consider Gerg Shatan - past litigation analysis are necessary. Hypotheticals that are probable vs possible are probably very useful also. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): past litigation might help emerge a part of the problems of the past - but other issues may not have got to the stage of litigation and are equally relevant Tatiana Tropina: The analysis of past litigation can turn hypothetical prediction into analysis of future risks but this is rather risk assessment than hypothetical, Greg. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/ Greg that we might compose probable hypotheticals - I just don't think we can well guess at court reactions to those Tatiana Tropina: David, +1 - we can only say if this is a serious risk or not based on our "assessment" matthew shears: past litigation should at least enable us to put more relevant parameters and better scoping possible futures Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let us also always remember that accountability is to the global community Tatiana Tropina: Matt, yes, that's how I see it. Moreover, the future can be, er, beyond anyone's prediction. Jorge, I remember this 24/7 :-) Seun Ojedeji - re Hypotheticals if they are probably they should be looked at Greg Shatan: Hypotheticals need to be reasonable likely and reasonably clear. Kavouss Arasteh: The methodology to address the jurisdiction is totally unclear Steve DelBianco: the way we designed Stress Tests in WS1 was to propose plausible scenarios that would test the accountability structures, both existing and proposed matthew shears: if there is time perhaps we wait on legal responses and litigation findings and then revisit the hypotheticals - may help in narrowing the hypotheticals Kavouss Arasteh: It is difficult to carry out this mixed discussion. Steve DelBianco: It wasn't necessary for the scenarios to be "reasonaly likely". Only that they were plausible. 4. Review & Finalize Questions for ICANN Legal Greg Shatan - (Review of draft questions). any comments on the current version of the draft? Kavouss Arasteh - need examples for 2A. Becky Burr: Amsterdam Becky Burr: Black Knight, a contracted party, is incorporated in Ireland. Maybe should read US states and US jurisdictions other than California. For example, DC is not a state Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Puerto Rico Becky Burr: Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. David McAuley - Please ignore my latest first comment. Why at then end to ask about the choice of venue which seems to be beyond our scope Greg Shatan - these are amongst the multiple layers of jurisdiction. Kavouss Arasteh: what is meant by General Jurisdiction and Specific Jurisdiction pls give examples avri doria: aren't venue and jurisdiction related. intrinsically David McAuley (RySG): I think they are related but not the same and wonder why we ask about venue Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Venue is an element in juridiction analysis avri doria: becasue it can have a jurisdictional effect? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): it may - for some issues - e.g. for procedural rules Kavouss Arasteh - what is the difference general jurisdiction vs specific and what is proper venue. Greg Shatan: Proper venue = case can be heard there. As to jurisdiction - general jurisdiction over the entire entity and all matters vs specific which only applies to certain purposes. Any objections to sending this to the legal committee. matthew shears: Great idea Greg - lets send it on its way asap David McAuley (RySG): A US federal court could decide that an issue in front of it is under both US and French jurisdiction – and dismiss the case based on its belief that venue is proper in France. That would not destroy US jurisdiction. matthew shears: yes, lets send it on its ways asap Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the answer to these questions may be helpful - although we may need to send in follow-up questions. Kavouss Arasteh - when will get an answer to this? Greg Shatan - any objections (none). DECISION: will send to Legal Committee once cleaned up per our discussions today and will ask to have an estimate time for a response from ICANN Legal. 5. Continue Work on Hypothetical #1 Greg Shatan - someone is suing ICANN because they have been harmed - they win - the court issues an order telling ICANN to do or not something (delegate or not a TLD). Steve DelBianco - when I read this it is plausible scenario. However this is not the stress test approach.Need to compare how things play out in our current jurisdiction scenario vs others. Greg Shatan - Difficult in this case. Steve DelBianco: True, Greg We made our scenarios somewhat more specific, and asked about how ICANN could be held accountable for how the corporation responded to the scenario Greg Shatan - (looking at comments in document). Kavouss Arasteh - difficult document. why we need to go so far in this straw man? Greg Shatan - Just showing the options and that a decision is rarely final - things can be appealed - we have left out the issue of settlement. this does not refer to a specific law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the more you go into details, the more differences we would see. Kavouss Arasteh: It is very difficult to digest this complex hypothesis Greg Shatan - please continue to work on the document. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Steve's point made sense - if we want to stress test the current jurisdictions - but maybe at a later stage when we get ICANN Legals answer and the answers to the questionnaire 6. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation Greg Shatan - we need to get this done please sign up and analyze a case. 7. Adjourned Decisions: * GS to forward questions for ICANN Legal to CCWG-Accountability Legal Committee after editing per discussion at this meeting. Action Items: * GS to complete editing of questions for ICANN Legal and forward to CCWG-Accountability for review.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 23 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #22 – 23 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7pvRAw 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 SO/AC Accountability Meeting #22 23 February 2017 @ 05:00 UTC 8 Participants at start of call. 0. Call Administration Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Seun audio only. any updates to SOIs? (none).Any changes to agenda? (none). 1. Review of any AI's from call #21 on February 16th Cheryl Langdon-Orr - asked for more contributions to the documents. Thanks to all for those. 2. Any Updates: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Updates? (none). Plenary met a few hours ago and would encourage all who did not attend to listen to the recordings. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation, readings and review. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Looking for polishing contributions. Looking forward to submitting the report for 3 March so it can have a first reading on 10 March. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's Farzaneh Badii - there is nothing new in this document and it has been included in the consolidated document by SDB. b) Review and discuss (as 1st reading for the WT) the Consolidated Draft Report Steve DelBianco - As promised the consolidated document was distributed on Monday with V1.0. 24 hours ago we generated a V1.1 version. NPOC members have been updating the document but not all those comments are consistent between themselves - so this seems to be their contribution as they have not answered the questionnaire. Only two left have not answered the questionnaire RySG, which we hope will answer and RSSAC which will not. SB asked where he should focus Ombudsman related issues and have pointed him to the relevant sections. The most important part for this group is to come to consensus on the recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would be doing the Consolidated doc in reverse to ensure the least discussed part get more time for discussion, but I see that is 'just me'. At least 2 of the three threads have been well covered in the oast ;-) so we should be able to cover those off almost 'pro forma' Steve DelBianco - Any general comments? (none). Going through the recommendations (starting page 9). Alan Greenberg – We need to change SHOULD to SHOULD CONSIDER DOCUMENTING given it may not be applicable to all those groups. Steve DelBianco - The word CONSIDER is included earlier in the text and could be added in each recommendation. Could also include WHERE APPLICABLE (support no objection). Farzaneh Badii - Re AG points - CHALLENGING results of ELECTIONS is fine but DECISONS seems much too broad. Steve DelBianco - These were the questions used in the questionnaire and the SOACs have responded to so it would difficult to explain such a change at this late stage. Given we are including WHERE APPLICABLE would allow an out anyways. Farzaneh Badii: that’s fine then Tatiana Tropina - Same concerns as FB and AG - maybe we can ask them WHICH decisions can be challenged. Its up to SOACs to decide which ones can be but clearly document this. On the second recommendation - have to be clear it is WHERE APPLICABLE. Steve DelBianco - (repeating the caveats in front of every recommendation). Aan Greenberg - do not share cocnerns of FB and TT because of the caveats and lets not wordsmith this now. Farzaneh Badii: but then they might cherry pick and say it's not applicable here or there Tatiana Tropina: Oh this is it. I meant type of decisions and Alan means processes Steve DelBianco - next transparency on page 13 - 6 recommendations that have been well discussed. Comments? Farzaneh Badii - re rec. 6 all COMMENTS including CORRESPONDENCE? Steve DelBianco - this is current practice and making it a best practice. Alan Greenberg - there is some correspondence that is confidential and cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - seeking input on this to fix. Onto participation page 19 - 6 recommendations. (no comments). Onto OUTREACH. Alan Greenberg - Re rec 4 - are minutes and or recordings of closed meeting should be accessible to members.? Steve DelBianco - correct. Alan Greenberg - again we need exceptions - sometimes the ALAC discusses individuals for nominations and this cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - will add subject to exceptions and confidential matters. Onto Outreach recommendations page 23 - 5 recommendations. (no comments). Last section Update to procedures 1 recommendation on page 25. Farzaneh Badii - Outreach groups have to be small or you cannot decide anything. Seun Ojedeji: do not agree on putting a size comment in. Steve DelBianco - insert something along the lines of "appropriate size'. On to track 2 Mutual Accountability Table - our conclusion is it is not recommended for formal implementation. Any objections to this recommendation (none). Onto Track 3 - Does IRP apply to SOAC activities (page 29) - is not applicable and should not be made applicable. Any objections (none). Will take these comments and circulate a new version in the next few days. Alan Greenberg - there will be minor updates to my contribution document but these should not be critical if they do not make it into the first reading document. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Second reading of this document will be made on the 2 March call. Important to have good participation. Action Item - Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it and have proper comments for the call. Also please advise the rapporteurs if you will be present at the face to face meeting in Copenhagen so we can plan the presentation of our document. Farzaneh Badii: I will send reminders to the list to read the doc 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • 10 March full day CCWG F2F at ICANN58 Copenhagen • Other dates and times after CPH Meeting will be arranged by staff TBC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (none). Adjourned. Action Items: · Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it, vs doing it on the call, and have proper comments for the call. · All, please advise the rapporteurs if you will be present at the face to face meeting in Copenhagen so we can plan the presentation of our document.

1 0

General issue that came in Staff Accountability subgroup
by avri doria Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

But which I have seen elsewhere. Does/should WS2 have a consistent terminology for deal with the dichotomy between a single ICANN multistakeholder organization and the Trinity of Board, Staff & the community. Each person writing a doc finds another clever way to try and express this, but they all differ a bit. It struck us that it might be useful for there to be one set of language for expressing this across the work we are doing. Is there such a set of terminology that I have missed? perhaps this can be added to AOB in the plenary meeting? thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 6

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #13 | 22 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #13 – 22 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/q5DRAw 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: · Staff to prepare public comment for Good Faith Recommendations · Staff to work with the groups that have active consultations to have a standard set of slides for the co-chairs to support these during Copenhagen. · Staff to reach out to rapporteurs to establish a draft agenda for Copenhagen. · Co-Chairs and staff to create a document for plenary consideration on the topic of time extension. · Staff to reach out to plenary to identify volunteers should produce a draft glossary for terms to refer to the three parts of ICANN for our next meeting. · SB to liaise with co-chairs to draft a request for information on selection of Ombudsman evaluator. Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 31 participants at start of call 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior Mathieu Weill - Keith Drazek audio only. No updates to SOIs. Will be the only co-chair on this call. 2. Review of Agenda Mathieu Weill: Any changes? (none) 3. Administration • Review of action items from previous meeting Bernard Turcotte - Review of Action Items. • Update on ATRT3 Bernard Turcotte - gNSO has considered but not concluded. GAC should give a response by end of month or by Copenhagen. • Travel funding for ICANN59 Bernard Turcotte - Reminder application period is open and will close after Copenhagen on 19 March- Please apply early if you intend to apply. Decisions will be made the week of 20 March to meet ICANN Travel requirements. 4. Legal Committee Update • There are no pending requests. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Good Faith Guideline – Second Reading Lori Schulman - (recap of recommendations). Mathieu Weill - Any comments or questions on these recommendations? (none). Any objections to adopting these recommendations for the second reading and sending these to public comment (none - full consensus). Decision: Good Faith recommendations approved for public comment. Action Item - Staff to prepare public comment for Good Faith Recommendations. Action item - Staff to work with the groups that have active consultations to have a standard set of slides for the co-chairs to support these during Copenhagen. 6. Review agenda for Face to Face meeting Mathieu Weill - Please note that we have reached out to the ICANN CEO to come and exchange with us again at Copenhagen. Hope we can get one of the StaffAcct documents ready. Diversity should have a questionnaire ready for consideration. Niels ten Oever: There is a chance the HR group will have smth ready for 1st reading by March 7 David McAuley - Request brief time in Copenhagen for an update to discuss the upcoming tasks such as creating the panel. Also to remind people we are a work in progress. Would request 10 minutes overall – (MW) will include an update on public comments - will take longer than 10'. Sebastien Bachollet - 10' slot for each sub-group could be good. Re Complaints Office – from our discussions there is a need for a place to put certain things which should not go to the Ombuds office. avri doria: and the community will really need to decide whether this new function is credible before putting too many extra functions in it. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: What if there is a problem with the complaints office? What is the accountability mechanism for the new complaints office? Lori Schulman: You could say that about compliance generally. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: It seems we have a conflict of interest with legal overseeing complaints office because legal's fiduciary duty is to protect the corporation. So that is in conflict with objectivity and neutrality, which is a requirement for an appropriate complaints office. Lori Schulman: I agree. Maybe smarter to put complaints under CFO. Edward Morris: +1 Robin. Action Item: Staff to reach out to rapporteurs to establish a draft agenda for Copenhagen. 7. Review of Schedule/Timeline Kavouss Arasteh - Should ask rapporteurs to not repeat decisions that have been completed. Similarly this group has agreed on the timeline for IRP so this should not be done again. Similarly for Ruggie principles in Human Rights. There are budget limitations and we cannot keep repeating to get thing perfect. Mathieu Weill - good point KA but we need a stable consensus and our rules are mentioned in our charter and we have to be careful to follow these. Avri Doria - Beg to differ with KA on this issue. We use the two readings rules but we need consensus. We made it a condition at the beginning that it takes multiple passes, and until we have comments from the community we do not have consensus. We try to cover each subject to the best of our abilities. Tatiana Tropina: Agree Avri - with every word. Lori Schulman: Support Avri's explanation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and most of us agree nothing is ever decided in or at s single call David McAuley (RySG): Yes, agree, @CLO Mathieu Weill - the only rule we have is the charter and I see support for your point in the chat. Kavouss Arasteh - Disagree with those views. Mathieu Weill - want to say the co-chairs all support the rapporteurs and can assist if there are issues they need help with. Bernard Turcotte – (Presentation of slides) Mathieu Weill: There is a very high probability that we will need to go into FY18 to complete all the work. As such we would like your inputs. Especially to understand how we need to close our work. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: This extension will impact on ATRT3 timeline presumably. Kavouss Arasteh - is this a discussion or a decision? we need a real document about this topic with the advantages and disadvantages. Then we can consider it properly. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): in the end you need a chartering orgs approval - and that is easier if there is a package Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, one by one. Niels ten Oever: So at least the people who are done are liberated from the process and can focus on other work. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agree with Jorge: prefer single package approach and there may be intersects between topics too presumably. Sebastien Bachollet - we need one final report that has all the recommendations in one document. Will make it simpler to go to CO and Board approval. Mathieu Weill - note in the chat support for separate submissions. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: It will be difficult for SGs to write comments on all issues at once. Better to focus. David McAuley: Strongly support for one final public consultation at the end because of the potential interactions between the groups. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Mathieu ,not exactly Lori Schulman: Agree with David. I think joining the topics makes sense with one consultation. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: One document will be put out either way. It is just a matter of approving them in a focused matter. Greg Shatan: i don't think every topic intersects with every other one. We can look for those that are not cross-dependent. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, Greg. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): good points, David Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agree with David. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Support a single final document and consultation because of interdependencies - also think that a number of groups will require 2 public consultations. Michael Karanicolas: +1 again Niels, but also, I think there's a risk recommendations may get stale if left to sit for too long. Energy supporting the ideas may dissipate, new external developments may happen, etc. Tijani Ben Jemaa - See the merit of a final joint report - agree with DM point. Concerned that the various groups are moving at different paces - how do we handle this. David McAuley (RySG): yes Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Leaving everything open just leaves room for the people who did the work to go away, waiting for the other groups to finish, to find out everything they did has been traded away for something else in another subgroup. not a good strategy. Michael Karanicolas: Also, not sure why potential conflicts can't be addressed by the working groups interacting. This was raised with transparency, and so we engaged in dialogue w the Ombudsman and Human Rights groups to help resolve. Mathieu Weill - TBJ good point but have no solution to propose at this time. Will close the queue after CLO. David McAuley (RySG): Michael weren't those engagements just between rapporteurs though? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): If some subgroups stray completely out of the deadlines perhaps we need some hard deadlines Sebastien Bachollet - Support DM and CLO but once the sub-groups are finished and its up to the plenary to build the final recommendations. Kavous Arasteh - The sub-group topics are so different - why we have to wait for those un-related groups to finish. Why not have two categories the Interrelated groups and those that are not which could them be independent. Michael Karanicolas: @David - on the human rights side, yes, because there wasn't much of a view that a conflict existed. On Ombudsman, Rapporteurs were the ones speaking, but we followed up with our subgroups, as well as other stakeholders (the Ombudsman) to solicit inputs. David McAuley (RySG): With respect, I disagree w/Kavouss – these topics share common considerations/bases in some respects Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Support RG and TBJ points. Would also seem to make sense as was presented by SB. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Dvid, you may continue to disagree with any suggestion that I make???? David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Michael, I remain of the view that we need one final report but if we went one-by-one then potential conflicts should be addressed by joint meetings of whole groups affected - but I remain of view for one final consultation Kavouss Arasteh 2: two groups Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): again, a final deadline could be sensible - to assemble all efforts and focus work David McAuley (RySG): +1 @Jorge Mathieu Weill - very useful exchange - We will also need input from the chartering let us have an action item to create a document as to our approach on this for discussion in Copen organizations. Action Item: Co-Chairs and staff to create a document for plenary consideration on the topic of time extension. 8. Next Plenaries Mathieu Weill - Do we need a 1 March plenary - recommend we skip (no objections - cancelled). Decision: 1 March plenary cancelled. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): On march 1st some of us will be at the IGF open consultations... Kavouss Arasteh 2: Mathieu+1 David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Mathieu 9. AOB Avri Doria - One of the things we noted in Staff Acct. is that we were getting confused wrt labels of ICANN, ICANN org. ICANN staff ICANN the Trinity etc. We need some standardization. Mathieu Weill - good point AD. Need consistency. Would look for volunteers to create draft glossary for our consideration in Copenhagen. Sebastien Bachollet - this question is more important today than before. Seems ICANN staff is being called ICANN Org. by the CEO which I do not agree with. Suggestion of a small group is good - maybe talk to CEO about this. Will volunteer if there is a group. Kavouss Arasteh: Interesting issue. Merits to be discussed because everyone has their own definitions of some terms. Tijani Ben Jemaa: It is a problem to have the people using the same terms to mean different things. The simplest is needed - we have three parts of ICANN which need unique labels and definitions. Discussion in plenary is good - working group uncertain. Alan Greenberg - The new CEO seems wedded to using ICANN org for staff and we should work around that. Action Item - Staff to reach out to plenary to identify volunteers should produce a draft glossary for terms to refer to the three parts of ICANN for our next meeting. avri doria: i have not asked my subgroup but i bet they volunteer me. so sign me up as penance. Sebastien Bachollet: Re Ombusman review status - discreptencies between what the sub-group thought they were to be involved in selection but we have had no input. We need the co-chairs to help us with that. Mathieu Weill - let us draft a request for information offline so we can be updated. Action Item: SB to liaise with co-chairs to draft a request for information on selection of Ombudsman evaluator. Adjournment Decisions: · Good Faith recommendations approved for public comment. · 1 March plenary cancelled.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #9 _ 22 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #9 - 22 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/3oPRAw 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 chat): 1. Intro: review of the agenda, attendance, SOI check. - Focus is to complete Document A and then will review Document B. Last if time allows will focus on responses to questions. -Questions and comments on agenda Suggestion to focus on Document A with objective on having something for Copenhagen - Agenda accepted as posted - SOI Update 2. Finalize Document A version 1.4. Jordan is rapporteur on this document and reviewed the draft document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wGRrJZ-i7WA0uYBIHaB5Q3ssqfRmbAcgHJwlQ6s… comments.and changes, will walk through the document for discussion. Objective to get to agreed draft - Comments and discussion on the draft - Section on what the ICANN Board does not do - noted that this may need to be re-addressed as it does not cover sufficient details and the way the process works - Proposal to move text to Annex - Section 2 as quite long and to shorten the paper this could be moved to the end to be retained as part of a single paper. - Anything to make the work more concise would be benificial - support was for the Annex but not for deleting text - Section 3 Proposed Changes and Clarifications review comments suggested - Section 4 Activities that should be started/continued/stopped - revised the text to better align with the section heading, sugggestion to go with bullet point list for group review and feedback. Noted similar concern with prior text being a think piece that went beyond staff accountability as well as some comments that did not address what was proposed for section content. - Discussion on approach - delete section 4 content and then merge text with Section 5, leaving bullets in Section 4 - need to reserve action until can consult with author of that section on proposal to move text - Noted from chat: Cheryl LangdonOrr (CLO): That works for me Jordan if you also specifically reach out to Klaus to engage him ASAP in the process ASAP Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): but Annex seems most likely... However Greg Shatan: Agree with Avri, and perhaps we can find some concrete objects in the prior text, e.g., evaluating staff against KPIs. - Noted that the text is confusing as to what/who is being referred to Staff, ICANN.org - unclear and may need some clarity, ex CEO is the voice of ICANN or the voice of Staff - one of troublesome questions. - Sebastien - Currently drafting paper looking at Ombudsman Compliant Officer and so nothing else - Need to look into conflicts of interests with part time and consultants as there may be a need to relook at ROI requirements - Action Item - get sections 4 and 5 out for review and comment so document can be finalized 3. Discussion / seeking feedback on Draft Document B v 1.2 (Avri is rapporteur on this Document) - Reviewed draft document B text and comments submitted, noted that documents did not cover multistakeholder 4. Schedule check https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ftd-Ps_qF46pf_iXf5foGjdUfCq64-St_43inFe…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Discussion on next steps and meetings for the group to arrange a call next week to complete the document in time to submit for Copenhagen Plenary. Looking to reschedule and hold another meeting for consensus on Doc A. Also request that group look at Doc B aswell so the document can be progressed. Reviewed adjustments to dates for work to be completed 5. AOB - No other business

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency
by Karen Mulberry Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

For your Information, the Transparency Report has been posted for Public Comment Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 6:44 PM To: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency [CANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-21-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency 21 February 2017 Open Date: 21 February 2017 Close Date: 10 April 2017 Originating Organization: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Categories/Tags: * Bylaws * Transparency/Accountability Brief Overview: Purpose: This Public Comment seeks community input on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 draft recommendations to improve ICANN's transparency. These draft recommendations were developed by the CCWG-Accountability as required by Annex 12 of the final report of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability, Work Stream 1). Current Status: The CCWG-Accountability reviewed these draft recommendations at its 8 February 2017 plenary meeting and approved their publication to gather public comments. Next Steps: Following the public comment period the inputs will be analyzed by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 who will consider amending its recommendations in light of the comments received and will publish a report on the results of the public consultation. If significant changes are required as a result of the public consultation the CCWG-Accountability WS2 may opt to have a second public consultation on the amended recommendations. If there are no significant changes required, the CCWG-Accountability WS2 will forward the final recommendations on improving ICANN's Transparency to its Chartering Organizations for approval and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en[ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> This message was sent to karen.mulberry(a)icann.org from: ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [Contact - Try It Free!] [icontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icontact.com_a.pl_1…> Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mm…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 21 | 21 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #21 here; https://community.icann.org/x/85vRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Action items · Participants to review FOI Google doc, include suggestions and discuss points on the list. Notes: (Incl relevant portions of chat) 18 Participants at start of call. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - No audio only. No changes. Mark Carvel and Jorge Cancio have input from the UN group on Business and Human Rights and I would ask if ok for them to present (no objections). will invite them to one of our future calls to present. Tatiana Tropina: what exactly would be the benefit of this? Are they aware what we are doing? Are they familiar with ICANN? Tatiana Tropina: or are the Ruggie salespersons? Sorry for being harsh 2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team (Review of the FOI document - Greg Shatan presenting 3 options) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… avri doria: Strong support for proposal 2 Tatiana Tropina: I don't know if "I don't know whether alleged by some" is an appropriate text for such a document Tatiana Tropina: I think proposal 1 and 2 can be combined to some extent but we have to be clear that the group hasn't reach an agreement whether to recommend Ruggie Mathew Shears - Want to reinforce point made my GS - have to be careful how this is written. Options should be placed above the statement. Niels ten Oever - MS could you expand on your views of the 3 options. Mathew Shears- Really uncertain ADOPTION is the right word. Have to be careful in these options. Tatiana Tropina: No but to make the second para in the FoI we have to really consider Tatiana Tropina: because I wonder where this consideration that they are useful is coming from? Have we agreed on that? David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Matthew, fair points Tatiana Tropina: I mean have we really considered? And this actually goes together with what Matt is saying Kavouss Arasteh - COULD be used as a guide is correct - this has been discussed over and over - but I do not agree with ADOPTION. We should not keep going over things that are done. matthew shears: these 3 proposal are fraught with difficulties matthew shears: yes, we have been here before ... avri doria: "could be used as a guide" works for me. but i am more than happy to explore a multitude of wordings. Tatiana Tropina: I strongly disagree Erich Schweighofer: Kavous Arasteh is right - Ruggie is for commercial companies. Tatiana Tropina - three people from the drafting team were not on the call to raise the issues. Disagree with KA, not all members of the drafting team were present which has caused issues. avri doria: no it is for companies. Greg Shatan: People from different stakeholder groups, I may add. avri doria: perhaps more pointed to the commercial affairs. and we cannot deny that ICANN is involved in commerce. it just does it 'not for profits’. but commerce it is. Erich Schweighofer: No public purpose ...? Kavouss Arasteh - Tatiana, pls do not impose your views avri doria: ... is invovled in in commerce ...public purpose is the reason. commerce is the method. Tatiana Tropina - ICANN can in the future agree to follow the Ruggie principles - but our group has not reached agreement on this. But the group has to have the discussion. Greg Shatan - Agree in large part with TT - we have not reached agreement. Have we completed the discussion - probably not - but we cannot buy the Ruggies principles wholesale - maybe some subsets - but some parts are certainly unapplicable and possibly against ICANN's mission and this goes beyond the scope of this group. Niels ten Oever: It's not like we never discuss this. Tatiana Tropina: we have to have at least the discussion on the option 1 or 2 we never had a discussion whether we have this conclusion or not exactly so I don't agree with having a sentence just because it sounds nice. matthew Shears: I would argue given the differences of opinion and interpretation it is to early to make a commitment of sorts to Ruggie - it may be that this is addressed in the future as we have also discussed in the past Tatiana Tropina - I agree that we can say thay ICANN org or community can decide for themselves what to do with Ruggie we have to be crystal clear that this group agreed or disagreed upon. I am not against Ruggie if ICANN wil decide to commit. Fine. Avri Doria: well they have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guideline, somethog to get a clue from. Kavouss Arasteh - If some people did not attend, it may be wrong that that opposed to what has been agreed at the meeting in which several people attending avri doria: well they have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guideline, something to get a clue from.[they do not have be guided by ... Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary David McAuley: I would add my voice to saying we have to be very careful how we refer to the Ruggie principles. these are simply guidelines as stated in the Bylaws. Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary fine. Why not. But let's not confuse anyone with what we agreed upon and what we considered Kavouss Arasteh - Secretatriat , pls also include my comments like other comments avri doria: /9on the notes, there was a not missing in my first sentence) Greg Shatan: And that's why significant points should not be decided at a single meeting. Otherwise, people could schedule meetings at a time when people are engaged in other ICANN-related meetings and unable to attend, and use that to jam minority positions through. Tatiana Tropina: David, agree! A very good point. ICANN can consider Ruggie but we certainly can't decide for them and we haven't agreed what is useful avri doria: agree not binding. Kavouss Arasteh - If people do not attend a meeting where things are decided you cannot come up after to change things. So do not agree with TT. Suggest use COULD BE USED WHERE APPLICABLE. We are not charged with any ADOPTION. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought that we worked under that principal Greg Tatiana Tropina: They have some strong language Greg Shatan: Sorry for the duplication, didn't even know that could happen! matthew shears: there is nothing to stop discussion of ruggie occuring in the future Tatiana Tropina: and any language which is vague can still be used to go outside the limits Tatiana Tropina: Matt +1 avri doria: ( greg been happenin to me too - did not understand how it happened ) Tatiana Tropina: it is appropriate when people didn't raise any issues we are raising them now avri doria: decsions are not made in one meeting, i thought David McAuley (RySG): disagree respectfully w/Kavouss - if a person misses one meeting they should still be able to be heard Tatiana Tropina: Especially if the person was trying her best to draft and raise issues John Laprise: Strongly disagree with Kavous. We want a strong output document. Period. Tatiana Tropina: We can't rush compromising the quality John Laprise: agreed Tatiana. Kavous: we're not in the UN we're volunteers working on Internet governance policy. avri doria: i thought we were working toward consensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything is decided. and that is by the plenary not us. matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly we take that as rule for my WT and all other groups in ICANN I work with Avri Tatiana Tropina: if we are to go for the option 2, we have to consider it not as a sentence but content wise Greg Shatan: Agree with Avri & Cheryl. And with Niels position on where we are and the two readings rule. matthew shears: yes Niels ten Oever: As TT and MS have said there may be a combination of options 1 and 2 which could work. matthew shears: yes Tatiana Tropina: only if we consider option 2 properly Kavouss Arasteh - Avri, if you want to make a principle of "i thought we were working toward consensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything is decided. and that is by the plenary not us.- pls submit your views to CCWG Plenary avri doria: Kavouss, not me. I thought that was the modality we worked by. Kavouss Arasteh - Not at all avri doria: and ICAN Consensus not Full Consensus Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Kavouss Arasteh - who agreed with that modality - is it in the charter? avri doria: of WS2? avri doria: i thought so. Greg Shatan: I cannot agree with general support for the Ruggie Principles. matthew shears: proposal 1a and 2 wil need some serious massaging and would need to be future oriented - the first para of proposal 1 stands as a separate statement of fact David McAuley (RySG): Well put Greg that RP is not a banned book and not THE guide Tatiana Tropina: If we adopt Option 2 we have to mean it and we have to be very clear on what we are agreeing to - need to discuss properly - will support any consensus. matthew shears: its a marriage that will need a lot of work avri doria: I think Tatiana concern is premature Niels ten Oever: Might also be interested to hear the UN WG about this Kavous Arasteh - Cannot say Ruggie Principles are completely inapplicable. this has been discussed. Tatiana Tropina: it was discussed and we never agreed it was applicable Tatiana Tropina: if we agree - fine. I am fine. I am against the sentence without a proper consideration. Greg Shatan: The Ruggie Principles are most certainly not "applicable law." Tatiana Tropina: no, they are not applicable law David McAuley (RySG): +1 Greg and Tatiana Niels ten Oever: No, they are a soft-law instrument. avri doria: my point was that is is premature to worry about the details of Ruggie. It is a guide for those doing commerce. anyone using it will have to take into account all thr restraints of the bylaws and not use it inappropriately. to do that up front seems premature. Tatiana Tropina: I think it is as premature as recommend to include the sentence only because we like how it is written proposal two hasn't got enough consideration it’s still a proposal. And we for now just consider it as a sentence, a text. Greg Shatan: First ws have to discuss whether it could be useful. Tatiana Tropina: Yes. If we write this we have to discuss this. yes exactly - not all are useful, right? why are we writing they are all useful? Kavouss Arasteh - Use Could, would etc. Saying not applicable is not good - this has been discussed many times. Tatiana Tropina: I think Kavouss is very close to the truth - under sertain circumstances if so decided by ICANN org, board or community Niels ten Oever: @Kavouss - added to the GoogleDOC Tatiana Tropina: depending on the case Greg Shatan - We cannot recommend the Ruggie Principles wholesale - some may be useful. This is a decision for another time - which could be useful or appropriate under what circumstances. Lets not go through them one by one. matthew shears: we are interpreting and implementing the bylaw. as to whether it is useful for interpreting we have discussed and that we could not agree. there is nothing to prevent them being revisited in the future and we could address them in that context Tatiana Tropina: Greg what if we leave the decision whether to use them as a guidance to those who want to use? ICANN org etc matthew shears: we are not ruling them out Tatiana Tropina: with careful consideration I also don't think so - it's not our task. But we have to be clear that it's up to them to decide and that we couldn't agree matthew shears: + 1 Greg Niels Ten Oever - GS proposal sounded like a good compromise - could you put this in the Google Doc? Kavouss Arasteh - Tend to agree with last statement of GS - Certain principles could be used for guidance under certain circumstances. This would work and leave it at that. Tatiana Tropina: +1 greg avri doria: except for the 'under any circumstance' goes too far let the future decide what fits the bylaws not us Tatiana Tropina: we didn't suggest to say it wasn't applciable. we suggested to say we couldn't recomment and that's not up to us to decide David McAuley (RySG): agree with Greg - RP is not to be "recommended" but can/may be a guide in appropriate circumstances that might help ICANN discern what it ought to do under bylaw constraints Tatiana Tropina: other than that. agree with Greg David, and it should be their decision, not ours - the applicability Avri Doria: yes Tatiana Matthew Shears: agree David McAuley (RySG): exactly - we cannot peer into the future for ICANN, thay must abide by bylaw in the day Niels ten Oever: Positive is nice Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the proposed text when captured then of course needs to go to the list for wider review and then discuss in our next meeting Tatiana Tropina: I am not against I am just against blank decisions and recommendations. If ICANN decides to use Ruggie I would be only welcoming this. Well, if they decide with careful consideration :-) avri doria: whereas the guidelines should still guide Niels ten Oever - Sounds like a possible compromise. Can we move to other parts of the text in these last few minutes of the call. Lets share this language and have two readings of it to confirm consensus. David McAuley (RySG): agree w/CLO Tatiana Tropina: agree with Cheryl, too Markus Kummer: there is room for some creative drafting! Tatiana Tropina: this is not finished and we have to redraft and re-discuss to make everyone happy - Markus, there is always the room... last week it was Hilton breakfast room ;-) for three of us Tatiana Tropina - for the policy framework part - change operationalize to PUT IN PRACTICE etc. (review of document). Each SOAC should take this into consideration individually. Balancing important. David McAuley (RySG): I think the word "commitment" (last word penultimate sentence) ought to be "core value" Niels ten Oever - please look at the document and comment on the list. I will propose to present where we are in Copenhagen at the plenary tomorrow as we will not have consensus by then. Kavouss Arasteh - What is TT proposing? Niels ten Oever - a work in process but we are progressing. Lets hope we can continue to do this going forward. Talk next week. Adjourned. Decisions – none

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-2017022
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

All, Our next plenary will be 1900UTC 22 February 2017. Adobe room is at *https://participate.icann.org/accountability <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate.icann.org%2Faccounta…>* The agenda is: 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda (2 minutes) 3. Administration Review of action items from previous meeting (10 minutes) Update on ATRT3 (5 minutes). Travel funding for ICANN59 (5 minutes) 4. Legal Committee Update There are no pending requests... 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups Good Faith Guideline – Second Reading (document - 10 minutes) 6. Review agenda for Face to Face meeting – (20 minutes) 7. Review of Schedule/Timeline (30 minutes) 8. Next Plenaries (5 minutes) 9. AOB (5 minutes) Adjournment

3 2

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #12 | 17 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 17, 2017

Feb. 17, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #12 – 17 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/wpzRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items Will send a revised version of the questionnaire to the mailing list and will target to present the final agreed text to the next Plenary (March) for discussion and approval Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 1. Welcome and review of the agenda, and items for the upcoming work 2. Review of Actions items Three pending action items 1.Office diversity on the mailing list 2. Getting documentation about Global Enrollment from Chris Grift 3. More feedback on Global Account project feedback - pending input 3. Review of Draft Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ziy7NDZZd9bW08HOxY-CYUx3qQdno5i9Rqp4fOJ…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> - Issues list - Open Items Reviewed text from the mailing list exchanges and comments noted in the draft report. - Noted exchange on the list regarding definitions need for diversity and skills. Discussed the text from the email list exchanges - Avri version noted - "Ensuring that ICANN is open to diverse participation is essential to fulfilling the range of skills and experience necessary for ICANN. If an original assessment of candidates is not sufficiently diverse to fulfill the skill, experience and diversity requirements necessary, then efforts need to be redoubled until diversity is achieved." - Discussion on diversity as another to skills rather than as part of the skills and experiences - it is essential and the three are equivalent - diversity, skills and experience are a set - From the chat - there appears to be support for this approach - Section titled as Elements of Diversity, this is what we are seeking in terms of diversity in skills and age, etc. problem could be in diverse set of skills to contribute to the work - the way its currently expressed may have confused the intent of the text. - Noted that diversity comes in second unless its required, example bylaw regarding the Board. Should not subordinate one thing to the others in the set - May move the proposed text to another section and add more details to avoid more confusion - Example noted SSAC - seeks to have diversity in the skill set and experiences of its members. Quite important to note that skills are an important part of diversity in order to fulfill their role - Need to try and get different profiles - Text trying to highlight we are looking for skills sets and not against any other form of diversity. Need to have a commitment to have diverse profiles - Have one proposal from Avri and have consensus to add to the document, with opportunity to make further comments on the mailing list as needed. - avri doria: i did not use the words hand in glove, but i think that is the intent of a interenrated set of elements that all need to met. - Another issue noted - gender, one section of the text has approach to gender as a binary. Intention is to allow self-identification rather than binary gender identification. Facebook example noted of having over 50 categories for reporting - Need to continue this discussion and look at investigate best practices in better ways for itself gender identification, will continue investigation as ICANN appears to ave a binary approach - Noted FIONA ASONGA: We could recommend that ICANN figure out how to accommodate the gender diversity - Need to provide flexibility in how people define themselves - Need to look at diversity in how its handled in NonCom and other areas where people are appointed to roles within ICANN - Noted avri doria: i think that if other is included and lots of people start to check it, then it may be worth digging deeper someday. - Another area noted for discussion - Age. - Noted that diversity of age means having all generations included older generation and the young - Recommendations and suggestion section needs text added. Please have exchange on the mailing list so this can be developed 4. AOB - Finalizing questionnaire - Need to finalize the questionnaire - previously called for consensus on the text but there are two questions that need to be clarified before releasing the questionnaire to the SO/ACs - Need what Elements of diversity that are important in order to propose wording. Noted Mathieu Weill: Which, if any, of these elements of diversity are relevant to your SO/AC/group? Are there any additional elements of diversity not listed that are important to your SO/AC/group? If so, please provide details of these. - Discussion on rewording and possible merging of the questions with the use of the term important. - Changing wording from relevant to important, acceptable, however there are two aspects to the question/additional elements of diversity that need to be considered as a particular group may have other elements of diversity that are "important" - ACTION ITEM - Will send a revised version of the questionnaire to the mailing list and will target to present the final agreed text to the next Plenary (March) for discussion and approval - Diversity office discussion - Noted RAHMOUNI Dalila: For the recommendation to create a permanent diversity office in Helsinki, which has received many supporters in our subgroup, I believe that this structure should be seen as an asset to help refine the work of the subgroup Once the WS2 is finished. propose to include it in the report, in item 4. "A permanent structure to enhance diversity: the Office for Diversity - Broader discussion and needs to occur between the Ombuds group on this suggestion and recommendation as to where it needs to be located - Ombuds or Complaints - Noted avri doria: i do not think you want to put diversity in complaints. or legal avri doria: of course i am not sure complaints belonged in legal either, but that is another story. - Not talking about implementation - leave that to ICANN staff to consider but do need to focus on the elements that are need to be part of the Diversity Office

1 0