February 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 US Holiday reminder
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 16, 2017

All, This is simply a reminder that Monday 20 February is a US holiday and that US based staff will not be available that day. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 21 | 16 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 16, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #21 – 16 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ApTRAw 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) 14 participants at start of call 0. Call Administration Steve DelBianco: No updates to SOIs. No phone only. 1. Review of any AI's from call #20 on February 9th • see https://community.icann.org/x/XI3RAw Farzaneh Badii: Review of the 3 aspects from last call. 2. Any Updates: Steve DelBianco: Thanks for FB and TT for their drafting. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's • Here is the link to google doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O8giARUBR2qPNED7c-XbWVSZmtCbqE0HsXb5MPP… Steve DelBianco: Go to pages 13 to 16 of the document. Expect members of SOACs to comment. The GAC section has yet to be filled in and are looking forward to assistance from them to complete this. Also, missing responses from the gNSO registrars and registries and looking for assistance for outreach for this. Action Item - TR to facilitate outreach. Kavouss Arasteh: What is being requested of the GAC - the existing operating principles are in effect - and revisions are being considered. Steve DelBianco: The GAC OP are will not provide enough material to meet the requirements of our report. discussion of processes and report. Kavouss Arasteh: Does GAC still have to supply information to this group. Steve DelBianco: We will be cleaning up this document in the next few days - once this is done we would appreciate you read the GAC sections and propose edits as necessary. what are the dates for getting a first reading by the plenary. Bernard Turcotte: Missed the deadline for 22 February meeting. If there is a meeting on 1 March the due date is 22 February. If not the next meeting is the face to face on 10 March - for a first reading for that meeting it would be required for 3 March 23:59 UTC. The next meeting after Copenhagen is currently scheduled for 29 March requiring document for 22 March 23:59 UTC. Steve DelBianco: If we want to move to a first reading we have to combine the three documents together and would ask everyone to please read the documents prior to the meetings to be ready for discussions. Any objections to consolidating the documents. matthew shears: Wondering if there is value in adding an executive summary or concluding section that summarizes the recommendations? Farzaneh Badii: yes Matt. that's a good idea and I think there is a template for that Steve DelBianco: Thanks to MS for volunteering to draft the exec summary. matthew shears: will do Sebastien Bachollet: As rapporteur for the Ombudsman team would ask if there are any links from this group to our group? Steve DelBianco: IRP and challenging election etc decisions within SOACs or sub-groups. FB and I will prepare a first draft of the document and hope all will read it before the next meeting on the 23rd so all can be prepared to discuss. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 23 February @ 05:00 UTC • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • Other dates and times arranged by staff TBC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (None) Adjourned. Documents Presented · SOAC Data Capture and Reccs<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066562/SOACDataCapturean…>

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Reminder vs timeline for submitting documents for the 22 February Plenary
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

All, Simply a gentle reminder that if rapporteurs wish to have a document considered by the plenary at its 22 February meeting that it needs to be submitted before midnight UTC today 15 February. Thank you. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 20 | 14 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #20 here; https://community.icann.org/x/6LPDAw 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 item * Everyone should keep working on the document. Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat): 13 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels Ten Oever: No phone only. No apologies received no updates to SOIs. Any updates to the agenda (none). 2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team Niels ten Oever: Work in progress: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… Niels Ten Oever: (going through the document from the top). “Which Specific HR conventions or instruments....” - Use GUIDE vs Operationalize at the bottom. David McAuley: thanks to NTO for a good editing of the document. Niels Ten Oever: Next part - "Policies and Frameworks" - again GUIDE vs Operationalize. (no comments). Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: sounds good so far Niels Ten Oever:"Consistent with ICANN's existing..." - Getting into the weeds here David McAuley (RySG): This section seems fine to me Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: are we saying that all SO s are possibly affected? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Rudi - This is one of the discussions in the drafting team. There are some who think all SOs and ACs are affected and must take into account the HR- FOI. Others seems to say that, for example, this does not affect any GAC procedures at all but I don't know why. Niels Ten Oever: (no comments). "Consider how the interpretation of this....." (reading). Kavouss Arasteh: Can we "interpret" this Bylaw? do we have the right to do this? Anne Aikman-Scalese: good question. Its the obligation of the Board in terms of who is responsible for compliance with the HR Bylaw. Kavouss Arasteh: There have been changes since last time - uncertain how this affects the GAC and its advice. Paragraph has to be revised - there cannot be interpretation of the bylaw. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: The GAC will have regard to human rights when formulating its advice but the Board could conceivably reject the advice on grounds that to do so would conflict with the commitment on human rights. The Board would have to come back to the GAC to explain this. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was also discussion in the drafting team regarding the use of the word "commitment" in two places in this document. "Commitment" is a term of art in the ByLaws and that word should be changed to either "Core Value to respect" or "obligation to respect" Human Rights. An ICANN "commitment" is something else with a different meaning for the definition of the Board's fiduciary duties. Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: i also agree with Anne's comment... Niels Ten Oever: KA - noted. But there is value in completing the reading. Kavouss Arasteh: Option 1 delete first line +1 word of second line, option 2 change Bylaw location. Rest is fine. David Mcauley: Suggestion is "in order to operationalize etc." I would delete. SOACs have such different remits that they could have 3 different takes on this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see your point David Niels Ten Oever: So recommendation was to have a CCWG-HR and DM noted that it might not make sense to have 1 for all the SOACs because they are different. Andreea Brambilla: +1 David, I was interested in some explanation for why both PDPs and a CCWG are proposed for implementation. If it's a trade-off, that should be elaborated here. Andreea Brambilla: At least that way we are laying out all options (i.e. 'fully considering') Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Mark - I agree with you as to not understanding why the language re GAC says "There is no change". There must be a change for every body in the community that makes policy recommendations. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re: PDP versus CCWG, I think it would be best if Human Rights are considered and included in the ongoing PDPS. In particular, these processes should be integrated in a manner that does not hold up another round - in particular a possible priority round for Community Applications. (these views are my own and not those of the IPC.) Niels Ten Oever: The last part " the affect if any .." (reading) Mark Carvell: AC's provide "advice" they do not develop policy they simply advise those who advise policy. The first sentence has no point - the key is the second sentence which applies to all ACs. The GAC has a WG on HRs and we will consider HR when developing advice for the Board. David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mark and agree second sentence is key point Niels Ten Oever: So MK remove the first sentece? (correct) and applies to all AC's. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with MK the GAC will consider HRs. Agree that it applies to all ACs because but GAC advice has special status. Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with MK on first sentence. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it's fine to delete first sentence but shouldn't we be saying that GAC will take into account the FOI- HR when rendering public policy advice to the Board - as is incumbent on the GNSO? Cheryl Langdon-Orr: the ALAC is different we influence SO's where the policy is being developed and as such more along the lines of what DM was proposing where SO's are individual. So no need for special HR rules for ALAC. David McAuley (RySG): I actually think the second sentence is more accurate than that @Anne, i.e. that the Bd will take FoI into account as it considers GAC advice. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks CLO, helpful. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ David - yes but that is accurate as to ALL SOs and ACs and other advisors, not just the GAC. Niels Ten Oever: Can we keep working on the document so we can have a document to review in Copenhagen. Kavouss Arasteh: Agree delete first sentence of the last part. Also the first line of the previous part. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with the deletion of 1st sentence Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Also agree to delete first sentence in last part. Do not understand why we cannot state that the GAC will consider HR's in defining its advice. Also wrt to balancing of core values - we seem to be unwilling to talk about the balancing between the human rights - the rights of authors must be balanced with privacy and free expressions on a case by case basis. This balancing should be discussed in Copenhagen. David McAuley (RySG): Good points Anne but I think we are avoiding specific examples for a reason - balancing will be done in discrete circumstances. I personally think this doc is not for granular HR discussion Kavouss Arasteh: responding to AAS - cross referencing, given HR in in the Bylaws, is therefore covered by the fact that the GAC advice must be consistent with the ICANN Bylaws - if we mention the GAC vs the HR then we have to also add it to gNSO and ccNSO. Mark Carvell: Support KA point. Appreciate ASS raising this point and should be discussed in the GAC. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ DAvid - We are avoiding the elephant in the room if we do not discuss balancing among Human Rights. This is true in part because the work of the CCWP has not to date included any literature on the rights of authors as far as I know. Though it was agreed to incorporate this in Dublin. In truth, there is no free expression without protecting the rights of authors and artists to the integrity of their work. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): cultural DNA in many cases yes Mark Niels Ten Oever: Adjourning the call. Decisions: · * General agreement to delete the first sentence of the last section. Action Items: · * Everyone should keep working on the document.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Reminder of next plenary meeting Wednesday 22 February 1900UTC
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

All, This is simply a reminder that the next, and possibly last plenary prior to Copenhagen, will be held Wednesday next week 22 February 1900UTC. As such please note that if sub-groups wish documents to be considered by the plenary they must received by Wednesday 15 February 23:59 UTC for distribution. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 20 | 9 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 10, 2017

Feb. 10, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #20 – 9 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/SpDRAw 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 Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat): 17 participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: No audio only, no changes to SOIs. 2. Questionnaire Greg Shatan: questionnaire has been translated into the ICANN languages and should be posted today. We will need to develop a methodology for analyzing responses. 3. Hypothetical #1 a. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W3U9-NnmO2Kk3d_qd4ApMcDKf5VcBMf93An6zg2… Greg Shatan: hope everyone will participate in this exercise. Any comments. Parminder: The critical part of this is the court that orders ICANN to change things - what happens then? this is different depending on where - jurisdiction of inc., presence or none. We should therefore split into three streams. We need not to go too much at positive results - we need to focus on issues. Greg Shatan: seem to be prejudging the ICANN legal answer - uncertain I agree with this. David McAuley: Hypothetical is about forecasting the future - the one thing we are more certain about is US jurisdiction given 19 years of experience. As such would focus on jurisdiction of disputes as per request of WS2. Avri Doria: seems early to make the judgement of satisfactory. quite possibly true, but early to come to a conclusion. Greg Shatan: revue of actual litigation may help with this. The notion that ICANN can only sued under specific circumstances seems counter intuitive to me. matthew shears: the review of existing cases should act as the reality check on the hypothetical Avri Doria: ah satisfactory for ICANN? or for the other litigants? David McAuley: What I meant Avri was that it seems satisfactory for the ability to maintain litigation, not outcome oriented Avri Doria: my comment applies to that David McAuley: OK, thanks, i read it differently then Avri Doria: people force litigation into courts that are advantageous to themselves if they can. Paul McGrady: This hypothetical is based on notion that ICANN is an international governance body - there are no documents confirming this - it is a California corp. period. We need to clean this up significantly. Greg Shatan: Note that this is Google doc and would invite everyone to participate - so over to you PM. Paul McGrady: uncertain I want to edit this bullet which says ICANN is above the law. Greg Shatan: Good point. but need consensus from the group on if it should be in or not. Phil Corwin: Want to comment on same points as PM - most of of page1 and page 2 should struck as it overstates ICANN's role. ICANN can be sued in any number of countries - the final assertion makes no sense vs Human Rights. matthew shears: I share Phil's concerns David McAuley: Agree w/point Phil making that ICANN needs to be subject to Jx somewhere(s) Parminder: My entire engagement in ICANN and in this group is because I think ICANN is an international governance body. or a body with a global governance function and a lot of people are here because of that (governance function) and GAC members are not interested to advise a US non-profit. The fact that ICANN is a US non-profit is an anomaly and not its global governance status and is not of primary importance. I agree with PC that law is important - but only democratic law. US law is made by Americans and as such is an anomaly and is not a democratic law for an international governance body suchas ICANN – this, for me, is the core of the issue for the jurisdiction group. Erich Schweighofer: ICANN has a global public function but based on California law. Can work very well - see the example of the International Red Cross Committee. Erich Schweighofer: States have to accept this role, then everything will be fine. Erich Schweighofer: If not - another solution is required. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Erich: the ICRC has a specific status... quite different... Erich Schweighofer: I know - under Swiss law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): not only Wale Bakare: Yes, @Paul. I don't think we can completely move away from that Erich Schweighofer: Internationally - not so much; Geneva Convention and a lot of customary international law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): that's quite a lot... Parminder: Yes, i will like to know if GAC members do not consider ICANN primarily as a global governance body Erich Schweighofer: States must accept the special role of IcANN, that is decisive. Avri Doria: i though he said they do, but he doesn't Parminder: greg, you are mis representing my question Erich Schweighofer: Subject to court's interference can be horrible. avri doria: not what i heard Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): strange question to GAC members... Avri Doria: not what i heard Philip Corwin: The purpose of this subgroup is to determine relevant jurisdiction questions related to ICANN's status as a non-profit California corporation, not to debate changing its corporate locus to that of another jurisdiction or to becoming an IGO on the highly questionable assertion that its private status subject to judicial restraint is a violation of human rights. matthew shears: + 1 Phil Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): key is whether accountability works, and works equally for all Paul McGrady: +1 Phil. Greg Shatan: who supports Parminders position vs his participation in this. Parminder: i restated it just as i said - but greg insisted that it is not what i said avri doria: i know my particpation as an individual is becasue it is a global governance and not just becasue it is a us non profit. Parminder: greg, you are creating a controversy from where one does not exist or need not exist - but pl go ahead David McAuley: While I continue to believe the hypothetical will prove unhelpful, I agree w/Phil's point that the language he noted should be stricken if we do use the hypothetical avri doria: how many of us are here because ICANN is a cool Us non profit. Parminder: pl do then do this polling on the email - now I insist that you do it, Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): repeat: key is whether accountability works, and works equally for all; and jurisdictional aspects should not tip the scale unequally for the global community Parminder: there is a human right of self determination Parminder: in UN decl of human rights, and the protocol on civil and pol rights Wale Bakare: Greg, i would suggest put the question to the subgroup mailing list for responses 4. Question for ICANN Legal Greg Shatan: Have edited for form and not substance - comments or concerns vs this version. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Does "ICANN" in the question cover the PTI? David McAuley: Thanks for editing Greg, seems fine Parminder: There are 3 types of litigation vs where a company is incorporated, has an office or neither. Also if there is an adverse judgement in a country against ICANN what are ICANN's options would seem a necessary question. Kavouss Arasteh: I do not understand the purpose of this question? Greg Shatan: question is to establish where ICANN can be sued and we essentially have 4, incorporation, hub offices, Engagement offices and none of these. Parminder: i think ICANN can be sued anywhere if the plaintiff can show impact of ICANN's action - or a particualr action, which could be almost everywhere Kavouss Arasteh: If ICANN rejects a contract with a registry in a country non-US - Should the registry take it to a court in Califronia or in another country? Greg Shatan: not the subject of this question. where ICANN and a third party have agreed to a choice of venue then this would be enforceable. Parminder: i think Kavouss case is covered in the question - i see nowhere that the question only refers to law where "choice" is avaiable David McAuley: Agree w/Parminder - isn't the example covered in the question? Parminder: but also the kind of case Kavouss mentions - where is it maintainable, and what would be impact of judgement of a court Kavouss Arasteh: Still valid post-transition? please advise. Greg Shatan: Re JC question - we can address this - as an Affiliate = piercing the corporate veil which would probably fail - but we could ask where PTI can be sued separately - but we should ask ICANN Legal first. Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder, I do not think so. My question is a practical one that some registrar facing with now David McAuley: don't see it as a major point however David McAuley: agree w/Greg, better to ask ICANN Legal Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Greg: thx! I guess that would be relevant, as parties may try to challenge delegations by directly suing PTI Paul McGrady: Specifications regarding specific jurisdiction (India for ICANN 55 and things related directly to this) vs general jurisdiction. So need to make these questions more precise. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, pls kindly retain my question in your future work Greg Shatan: PM good points. Parminder: KA specific example not limited to choice of law or not. Its about wherever ICANN can be sued and as such KA's question is covered. Also agree with PM. Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder, where my case is covered? I do not see that Parminder: ok, i can see greg's point now Parminder: for cases only where parties are bound by prior choice of law David McAuley: Agree with Parminder but disagree with PM on getting more specific. Question as is is a good question. Greg Shatan: I agree that there is a distinction between lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue. Kavouss Arasteh: My question is valid and I do not think it is included in this question - but we will need an answer to. Parminder: i would say that a court could still apply personal jurisdiction on a registrant aggrievement case 5. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (not discussed) 6. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C a. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… (not discussed) 7. Timeline (not discussed) 8. AOB (not discussed) 9. Adjourned Documents Presented · Jurisdiction Question to ICANN Legal.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64065610/Jurisdiction%20Qu…> · JurisdictionHypothetical1.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64065610/JurisdictionHypot…>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #12 | 8 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #12 – 8 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/56jDAw 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 include Good Faith document for second reading at next plenary. · Staff – to publish Jurisdiction questionnaire and advise the list. · Staff to arrange for public consultation on Transparency document · Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion within the next 10 days. · Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year. · Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering organizations regarding potential extension · Co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to face Notes (Including relevant portions of the chat): 25 participants at start of call 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior, Thomas Rickert: Audio only Jeff Neuman. No changes to SOI. 2. Review of Agenda Alan Greenberg: Good faith before the top of the hour. Greg Shatan: same as AG. Thomas Rickert: will do so if Lori is present. Sebastien Bachollet: would like to present a short update on Ombudsman. 3. Administration • Review of action items from previous meeting Thomas Rickert: Encourage all rapporteurs re timeline updates. • Update on ATRT3 (5 minutes). Thomas Rickert: ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC have replied positively. Waiting on GAC and gNSO. • Travel funding for ICANN59 (5 minutes) Leon Sanchez: No objections to use previous rules, 1 round, starting Friday next week (17 February) and closing 19 March. • Working Methods (10 minutes). Leon Sanchez: presentation of new methods. No objections. 4. Legal Committee Update Leon Sanchez: no pending requests. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Human Rights – Update (5 minutes) Niels ten Oever: Thanks to co-chairs regarding the advice re scope especially for using Annex 12. The sub-group has decided to submit a single document and as such the sub-group will need some additional time to complete the work. Sub-group asks that the plenary cancel the publication of the FOI for HR for public consultation (decision). Do not think this will have a major impact on our timeline. Kavouss Arasteh: at this stage we should avoid to insert new ideas. Application of HR to policies - gNSO is not subject but GAC is - strongly disagree. Greg Shatan: Do not remember anyone stating HR would not apply to gNSO policy work. Kavouss Arasteh: I hope this statements you made , YOU WILL FOLLOW Grec Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Greg, that is what I understood from the HR call David McAuley (RySG): I was on HR call yesterday and agree w/Greg’s comment – must have been miscommunication Kavouss Arasteh: Look at the drat of last night which you prepared or you were involved in its preparation is totally different from what you said Leon Sanchez: this is for the sub-group. Tijani Ben Jemaa: Support LS. Kavouss Arasteh: Tijanii, you did not say anything last night about exclusion of GNSO policy from conformity to HR but for GAC was mentioned to have advice which should consistent with HR this is not fair and you did not say anything last night • Jurisdiction Questionnaire update (5 minutes) Greg Shatan: Expecting translation back today and publication soon on the ICANN Public comment page as a note. To give adequate time for responses it closes 17 April. We will review responses as they come in. Everyone is welcome to participate in the work. Kavouss Arasteh: Openness to be noted. Face to Face meeting like other CCWG-Accountability are open to anyone who registers and has an SOI. We need to come up with a methodology to process the questionnaires in the sub-group. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, If there's something in the document that appears to say that I am not aware of which statement that is. Perhaps you could point that out in an email on the Jurisdiction subgroup's list. I should note that I am only one of several members of the drafting team. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls then kind KINDLY observe the equal treatment between GAC and beloved GNSO • Good Faith Guideline – First Reading (document - 30 minutes) Lori Schulman: after a successful pre-reading at the last plenary the sub-group is now happy to present their recommendations for a first formal reading. ICANN Legal has commented the document without any issues where they also confirmed that the recommendations are in conformity with California Law. Any questions? Kavouss Arasteh: why call them guidelines - are they not requirements. Lori Schulman: this is from the WS1 report. This are not hard and fast rules - it is up to each SOAC to decide if they want to follow it. Alan Greenberg: Agree with LS, they are guidelines. If an SO or AC does not follow them then they may not be indemnified. Leon Sanchez: Any objections to this document? (none). This concludes the first reading with the plenary accepting the document with no comments (decision). Lori Schulman: Support AG. Alan Greenbers: Many thanks to all but especially to LS for getting this done. • Ombudsman (5 minutes) Sebastien Bachollet: Update from Ombudsman Group - have replies to the RFP for evaluation. Re timeline - will not be able to give feedback until we complete the review work. • Transparency – Second Reading (Document – 30 minutes) Chris Wilson: Since the last plenary call we have received feedback re govt-ICANN Interactions re Formalized or not. Because of this we have revised the recommendation if that interaction is about ICANN policy or administration. Hope that this clarification satisfies the concerns raised. Michael Karanicolas: Last call there was request to see if there were overlaps with HR or Ombudsman. None for HR but have received two comments from the Ombudsman group re tracking and oversight and review of frivolous or vexaious requests for DIDP that these should go to the complaints officer - and as such have left it open - now have received objections to both of these and looking for a temp check at this meeting. Kavouss Arasteh: Title issue. Issue re GAC (govt interactions). Michael Karanicolas: Review of changes to recommendation 13 and 19 and govt interactions. CW: Since I originated some of these changes, I am printing the draft out and will read it thoroughly and comment to the List as necessary. CW David McAuley (RySG): With respect to the document overall, some on the subgroup (e.g. me) have reserved comment on a couple of matters based on what ICANN’s input turns out to be on those matters – I understand ICANN has committed to submit some comments and am looking forward to them. Sebastien Bachollet: No issues with the document like this for the comment period. However some sub-groups are requesting something of an independent body - and currently there is only the Ombudsman. There are three ways to answer this, Ombudsman, new independent body with different mandate vs Ombudsman or ask staff to do some of this like the complaints officer. We (plenary) will need to have this discussion later on to see where we want to go with this. Open to discussing with anyone. Leon Sanchez: Are we good to approve this second reading. Micheal Karanicolas: DM has asked we consider input from staff first. ICANN Legal will comment at some point but am uncomfortable holding this up for that. David McAuley: I do have some concerns - vs public comment - up to co-chairs. Leon Sanchez: Any objection to accepting the second reading and publishing for public comments. (none). Staff to prepare for public comment (action item). 6. Review of Schedule/Timeline (30 minutes) Nathalie Vergnolle: Review of dashboard slides. Thomas Rickert: We believe we will not complete by the end of June and are seeking approval of the plenary to ask for more time (not money) from the chartering orgs. Any objections (none). Co-Chairs will draft a note to the chartering orgs. there is a potential issue with taking money from this fiscal year to the next. This is also the last time we can do such an extension. Any reactions? Kavouss Arasteh: Do you wish the plenary response now? Thomas Rickert: Just want ok to reach out to chartering orgs and the PCST to investigate if we can do this - if so then we will come back to the group. but we need concrete planning. Transparency is key. Keith Drazek: We need to ensure the Fiscal Year timing doesn't impact our ability to complete the work. David McAuley (RySG): Agree with chairs approach. Sebastien Bachollet: Please give me the time to come up with a realistic timeline after we know who will do the evaluation. We are looking to produce a first document to the plenary for the end of June. Kavouss Arasteh: Any extension should be well supported. Transfer of budget from one year to another is another thing - we need solid basis for doing this that is well documented. We need to do this once for all. Thomas Rickert: This is exactly what we are trying to do. In the absence of objections that the co-chairs can prepare a communication to the chartering orgs, the Board and the PCST about the potential extension. Kavouss Arasteh: We have to review our working methods before going forward with this. Thomas Rickert: We all agree we could of moved forward faster but sometimes this type of community work is cumbersome. Shall we note this as an objection KA. Kavouss Arasteh: no objection but we have to be effective. Thomas Rickert: Thank You KA. yes to improving. Sebastien Bachollet: In addition to WS1 for Ombudsman we had to take one ATRT2 work. Thomas Rickert: Ok so no objections. Action Item ask sub-team rapporteurs to come up with a realistic timeline to complete the work. Action Items: · · Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion within the next 10 days. · Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year. · Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering organizations regarding potential extension 7. AOB Kavouss Arasteh: will there be a face to face in ICANN 59? We need to know for airfare reservations. Thomas Rickert: We need to consult with the ICANN meeting teams. Action item co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to face. this should be resolved prior to opening the trav Adjournment Decisions: · HR sub-group asks that the plenary cancel the publication of the FOI for HR for public consultation. · Good Faith document first reading accepted by plenary with no changes. · Transparency document second reading accepted by plenary. Action Items · Staff to include Good Faith document for second reading at next plenary. · Staff – to publish Jurisdiction questionnaire and advise the list. · Staff to arrange for public consultation on Transparency document · Sub-team rapporteurs to review their timelines for completion within the next 10 days. · Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year. · Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering organizations regarding potential extension · Co-chairs and staff to request a date for ICANN 59 face to face

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #14 - 09 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #14 | 09 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/N4PRAw 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 portions of the chat): 1. Administrivia David McAuley: No audio only, no changes to SOIs. One observer Jay Sudowski - given there are no objections from the participants JS may observe only. 2. Rapporteur report: a. Letters sent; b. Contact with ICANN staff. David McAuley: letters not out yet, few changes coming re Elise G suggestions. Re ICANN staff. Would ask SE to comment on current plans for the EOI re potential member of the panel. Samantha Eisner: Working internally on this. Our timeframe to provide this to the IOT prior to Copenhagen. Looking forward to receiving input from IOT on this. David McAuley: is there a need for an RFP for administrative support for IRP? Samantha Eisner: we do not see a need for this at this point. This can be done at any time. When the rest of elements are lined up we can consider this. We will be asking the ICDR to review the updated supplementary rules to ensure they are not in conflict with the ICANN bylaws or beyond their capacity. We have been considering this internally and do not expect any issues but there is a need to verify. Kavouss Arasteh: no problem with observers to listen only. combination of the letters - why combine? David McAuley: am contemplating putting them together for efficiency 3. Comments forum: a. Process discussion - suggested ways to address comments: i. Spreadsheet. ii. Small groups? iii. Lead member per comment? iv. Lead member per topic? Bernard Turcotte: Proposed process, the group could discuss the timing issues and assign the lesser issues to individuals to report to the group. Malcolm Hutty: Bernard proposal: exactly as I would have suggested avri doria: i think the more online tools are used the better. know it is not possible for all, but dealing with static docs is just a miserable way to go unless some one person is always in edit mode. b. Substantive reviews: i. Timing for filing claims. c. Work on list. David McAuley: DM document ("Time for filing issues") Sidley has advised that as originally constructed there was an issue and suggested new text. Upon reading wondered if this was the solution. The Richard Hill seemed an interesting option of Facial vs AsApplied. If we pick a date from "being aware of material harm" we could resolve all issues? Malcolm Hutty: Internally in Lynx there was significant concern how these timing recommendations come about given they have not been supported by our own external counsel. Our (IOT) approach seems to be wrong - we are open vs a moratorium but we need to be more formal and consistent consideration vs timing. Samantha Eisner: I do not agree that there was any confirmation by Sidley that anything was proffered that was against ICANN's internal rules. The question that was posed to Sidley was whether the draft supplemental rules allowed for "facial invalidity", and they concurred with ICANN's position that the draft supplemental rules did not there was no statement from Sidley that the IOT or ICANN were violating the CCWG Proposal. Nonetheless, I agree with Malcolm that if we are to change the timing from what was posted in public comment, that needs to have a well-engaged conversation Kavouss Arasteh: Are we talking about changing what timings? David McAuley: Yes we are discussing changing the timing based on public comments. As to the comment by MH - the rules we proposed by the IOT and we were trying to balance several factors to allow for certainty. With respect to the institutional concern there is a simple solution we need to reconsider the 45 days. As to a moratorium, re Business Constituency, "knew of or should or reasonably known of" if there are significant changes we will have to go to public consultation again. We should cover this via a discussion on the list. Greg Shatan: We need to take into account the Empowered Community processes and SO/AC processes. Malcolm Hutty: We cannot pick a time arbitrarily - we need to look at what the requirements are - as long is as long as necessary to not undermine the process. Greg Shatan: We arrived at 45 days trying to find balance and the possibility of finality. 45 days may of been too short - we need to consider comments and the Empowered Community timelines as well as SOAC timelines. The multistakeholder process is slow and messy and our timing should be in line with this. Agree we need to be analytical but we cannot leave everything open for ever. Samantha Eisner: IRPs are not always going to be brought by the EC or by the community Becky Burr: I thought the 45 days was in the Recommendation and the Bylaws Malcolm Hutty: The standard itself by which we pick the period needs to be grounded in the bylaws. Merely "in our judgement, it sounds like a reasonable period" is not. (also to Greg: repose is not grounded in the bylaws) Greg Shatan: The timeframe needs to be grounded in pragmatic realities. Kavous Arasteh: We have discussed timing for a long time and came to a solution. Maybe we need to ask if our group supports longer than 45 days? David McAuley: MH are you suggesting there should be no time limit. Malcolm Hutty: There should be a limit but it should be on a rolling basis. Greg Shatan: We need to look at the Sidley recommendations and the comments. Its premature to have this conversation without us having read the comments. Kavouss Arasteh: not comfortable with no limit. 45 days seemed reasonable. Malcolm Hutty: @Greg, I do agree on that, we should now look to the comments. This is discussion is merely introductory Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, can you clarify what you mean by no fixed time, rolling basis? Malcolm Hutty: What I meant was, it must be calculated relative to the time the harm crystallised, and knowledge appeared, not fixed relative to the action complained of David McAuley: obviously, timing will be the big issue. MH and myself could pick this up (timing) to push this on list. Malcolm Hutty: @David, I am very happy to volunteer, as you suggest/request Greg Shatan: Isn't it now based on when the claimant becomes aware? Or is it the 12 month drop dead date you are referring to? Malcolm Hutty: @greg I was referring to dropping the 12 month drop dead date Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, thanks; got it. Kavouss Arasteh: need to recommend things to the group. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly note that we should not drop the upper time limit at all David McAuley: Next meeting 2 March 1300UTC. Adjourned.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Issues Jurisdiction Questionnaire
by Karen Mulberry Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

The Jurisdiction Subgroup’s Questionnaire has been posted on the ICANN Announcements page and a new wiki page has been created at https://community.icann.org/x/UpXRAw, where you can find the questionnaire translations CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Issues Jurisdiction Questionnaire https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-09-en The newly-adopted ICANN Bylaws created several Work Stream 2 accountability subgroups. One of these subgroups, the Jurisdiction Subgroup, is addressing questions related to ICANN's jurisdiction, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of policies. The Jurisdiction Subgroup has put out a questionnaire seeking responses to several jurisdiction-related questions. The Subgroup is asking you to consider and respond to these questions with concrete, factual submissions. The questionnaire can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/UpXRAw and is available in each of the 6 languages supported by ICANN. You may respond to the questionnaire in any of these languages. Responses must be transmitted via email to ccwg-acctws2.jurisdiction.questionnaire(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-acctws2.jurisdiction.questionnaire@icann.org>. Responses must clearly identify the individual responding and, where applicable, the organization for which the response is being submitted. Responses may be submitted at any point during the response period. The subgroup will accept responses until 23:59 UTC 17 April 2017. Karen Mulberry Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: +1 424 353 9745

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 20 | 09 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #20 – 09 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Zo3RAw A copy of the action item and 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): 0. Call Administration • No audio only participants • Attendance will taken from the AC room 1. Review of any AI's from call #19 on February 2nd • see https://community.icann.org/x/XI3RAw 2. Any Updates: 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 single topic from this track from the data capture exercise, 'Participation - mechanisms and methodologies', is for today's Agenda • see reference drafts (PDF and Word) to be sent (if possible) to the email list from Farzaneh / Tatiana https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-so_ac • Farzaneh presented the work done this week on Participation by the drafting team • Topic for next week: Internal review of accountability mechanisms of SO/AC • No volunteer identified in the call to work on this topic. We'll ask for a volunteer through the mailing list. ACTION (Farzaneh): send email to subgroup mailing list to call for volunteer to work on next topic: Internal review of accountability mechanisms of SO/AC • Farzaneh: this is the last topic that needs work, and we can be done. b) Here is the link to DataCapture and reccs google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O8giARUBR2qPNED7c-XbWVSZmtCbqE0HsXb5MPP… 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 16 February @ 13:00 UTC • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • requesting additional meeting on 23 Feb @0500 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's.

1 0