February 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 7 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #19 here; https://community.icann.org/x/26XDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat): 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc No audio only participants. No SOI updates. No addition to agenda 2. The way forward vis a vis Public Comment of FoI Drafting team has been considering the bullets from annex 12. Their conclusion is that there is still work to be done by the subgroup, and recommendation made to hold off the public comment on the FoI, till a single document is produced that would consider all the bullets of annex 12. Subgroup consensus to proceed per this recommendation. This update will be presented at the CCWG plenary tomorrow. 3. High level overview of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team - Preamble Kavouss: I think we should have only 1 document, not 2 separate documents. Tatiana: drafting team agrees that there should be only 1 document. The document presented is only a working document to discuss how we plan to address all the bullet points. All additions coming out of this exercise will be integrated in the FoI document. - Discussed bullet #1 - "Consider wich specific HR conventions ... " Drafting team will include feedback received in document for futher review / discussion - Discussed bullet # 2 - "Policies and frameworks..." Discussed the necessity to distinguish between ICANN org and ICANN community Kavouss: I disagree to make a distinction between ICANN org and ICANN community This topic needs to be further discussed - bullet # 3 - "Consistent with ICANN's existing processes..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team - bullet #4 - Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this bylaw..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team - bullet #5 - Consider what effect, if any, this bylaw will have..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team Kavouss: we need to further discuss this document, suggests to not make distinctions between groups. 4. AOB The drafting team will continue to work on this document based on the inputs received today. Subgroup will continue reviewing this document in the next meeting of the subgroup. Next subgroup meeting: Tuesday 15 Feb @19:00 UTC

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20170208-Agenda and Documents - Reminder
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Adobe room for the meeting is the usual room at: *https://participate.icann.org/accountability <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate.icann.org%2Faccounta…>* As per our new procedures for plenary meetings please find below the agenda and materials for the 1300UTC 8 February plenary meeting: Plenary Agenda (1300 Wednesday 8 February 2017): 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration • Review of action items from previous meeting (5 minutes) • Update on ATRT3 (5 minutes). Travel funding for ICANN59 (5 minutes) • Working Methods (10 minutes). 4. Legal Committee Update • There are no pending requests. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Human Rights – Update (5 minutes) • Jurisdiction Questionnaire update (5 minutes) • Good Faith Guideline – First Reading (document - 30 minutes) • Transparency – Second Reading (Document – 30 minutes) 6. Review of Schedule/Timeline (30 minutes) 7. AOB Slides used for the plenary meeting will be available for download on the WS2 Wiki after the meeting. Thank You Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Decision on ATRT3
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear all, I am forwarding the ALAC decision on ATRT3 FYI. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Asunto: ALAC Decision on ATRT3 > Fecha: 6 de febrero de 2017, 17:18:23 GMT-6 > Para: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> > > ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Limited Scope of the Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Review > > During the ALAC Monthly Meeting on 20 December 2016, the proposed limited scope of the ATRT3 Review has been discussed. After consultation with ALAC Members who have participated in ATRT2, closely tracked ATRT2, and/or actively engaged in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), the ALAC has reached agreement on the following: > > The ALAC supports the CCWG-Accountability proposal of convening a narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team as soon as possible, which is tasked with assessing the implementation of ARTR2 recommendations only as per the message from Mathieu Weill dated 02 December 2016. The ALAC also supports the proposal of requesting ICANN Staff to do a self-assessment triage report on ATRT2 recommendations and their implementation, which will facilitate the completion of the ATRT3 work in an efficient manner. Should this go forward, the ALAC will encourage At-Large Community members who participated in previous ATRT Review Teams to apply for the ATRT3 Review Team and contribute to its Charter development process. > > Nevertheless, the ALAC stresses that the proposed limited scope of ATRT3 should be considered exceptional. Future ATRT rounds should have the original full scope to cover accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations, as per requirements in the original Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Reviews. Furthermore, the fourth ATRT should convene sooner before the maximum five years. > > Lastly, the ALAC is concerned that the evaluation of the overall composition and balance of stakeholder representation in ICANNs Multistakeholder Model is long overdue, an issue raised during the Second At-Large Summit. This review should either be addressed under ATRT4, or by a special review convened by the ICANN Board ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to all views from all stakeholders, proportionally to their scope, relevance, and decision-making requirements in ICANN. > > Alan Greenberg > Chair, ALAC

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #16 | 06 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #16 - 06 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BIvRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes (including portions of the chat): Apologies for not having sent an agenda ahead of this call. Would like to use this call to get following updates: * Update on RFP * Update on work w/ Diversity team * Update on work w/ Transparency team Update on RFP (Lars) * 7 proposals received, from 4 continents * ICANN staff is going to do a preliminary scoring this week, and will present score cards in the next meeting of the subgroup, ie next Monday, Feb 13. * Lars will confirm this week the kind of elements that can be shared with the subgroup at this point. * Asha Hemrajani: I understand that the target date for selection of vendor is Feb 20. Just wanted to check if there is any possibility for delay? * Sebastien: at this point, no reason for delay. Update on work w/ Diversity team * Diversity group is interested in our proposal but want to give it more thoughts * Asha Hemrajani: Just wanted to ask - just wanted to get a feel - does everyone agree to having diversity disputes or monitoring etc under the ombuds function? * Sebastien: our proposal was to have the office of diversity hosted within the Ombuds office. Update on work w/ Transparency team * Had some exchanges with the rapporteur * The Transparency report will be presented to the Plenary * Herb had raised concerns regarding potential conflicts regarding confidentiality * Sebastien suggests that these elements be documented, so that the subgroup can take them on as necessary. * avri doria: has the reporting strucnture for the ombuds changed. does the office report to the legal team? * Sebatien: the Ombuds office reports to the board * Asha Hemrajani: Yes the ombuds function still reports into the board, selection by the BGC AOB Staff accountability: * avri doria: the question that may come out of the staff acct is whether the ombuds can take issues from the staff. * Asha Hemrajani: Good point Avri * Sebastien: this point is already in our report, and I will try to attend the staff acct subgroup meeting * Herb: if a issue arises in the community, the ombuds can look into it * Sebastien: suggest we add it as a t

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 2 February
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #19 – 26 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XI3RAw A copy of the action item and 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 Item: · Action (Outreach sub team): reach out to the group through the mailing list to collect additional inputs and further develop the recommendations on the Outreach section. Notes (including relevant parts of chat) 0. Call Administration No audio only participants. Roll call will be taken from the AC room. No SOI update. No request for change to agenda. 1. Review of any AI's from call #18 on January 26th @1300 UTC All action items can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/9a-DAw[community.icann.org]<https://community.icann.org/x/9a-DAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org%5D> 2. Any Updates: No updates from anyone. 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, 'Outreach' as an activity that is an aspect of participation, is for todays Agenda... see reference drafts (PDF and Word) attached to the email from Farzaneh Badii received to list https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-so_ac yesterday . Here is the link to google doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O8giARUBR2qPNED7c-XbWVSZmtCbqE0HsXb5MPP…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O8giARUBR2qPNED7c-XbWVSZmtCbqE0HsXb5MPP…> Steve: we received a very detailed response from ALAC. Transparency: Steve walked through the document he produced, and opened discussion on the draft recommendation proposed regarding SO/AC transparency. Kavouss: 4th bullet - I would suggest that SO/AC meetings be normally open, and closed meetings be an exception, and be so declared, with an explanation. No objection from group, text will be edited to reflect this change. Outreach: Steve walked through the BC's response on outreach. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: GAC has membership of 170 national and territory government. We outreach to the remaining governments through the biennial High Leel Governmental Meeting when Minsters from GAC and NonGAC member governments are invited. Also individual governments and IGOs also do outreach to the non-members - e.g. UK has been in contact with Bangladesh administration. This will be added to GAC's response. Steve walked through the draft recommendation drafted by Farzaneh, and outlined that these recommendations are less specific than the ones on transparency. Greg: these should be further developed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I can not speak for ALAC of course but I suspect they and At-Large also would see 'effective' Outreach being strengthened as important Farzaneh: I agree and will modify the recommendations to be more action oriented. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agree - important to make specific recommendations in this exercise to SOs and ACs "to consider adopting as general practice...." Steve DelBianco: For example, I would restate Recc 5 to be: Each AC/SO should have a strategy for outreach to parts of their targeted community that may not be adequately represented at the time. Kavouss: I agree it should be more textual. Action (Outreach sub team): reach out to the group through the mailing list to collect additional inputs and further develop the recommendations on the Outreach section. Participation: Kavouss: Participation needs to discussed. Steve: the topic of participation has not been worked on by this subgroup, we won't be able to cover this topic today. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule · 09 February @ 05:00 UTC · 16 February @ 13:00 UTC · 02 March @ 05:00 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. Suggestion for topics for discussion for next week? We also need volunteers to draft recommendations by then. Steve: I would suggest to discuss participation Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agreed - diversity of active participation in policy matters and development is crucial issue. Cheryl: suggest we limit the discussion to Participation methods and mechanisms. Tatiana volunteers to work on this topic. Documents Presented · SOACDataCaptureandreccs.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64064860/SOACDataCapturean…>

1 0

Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

FYI. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:56 AM Subject: Re: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder To: Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Cc: thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, ASO-chairs(a)aso.icann.org, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net>, tsinha(a)umd.edu, bverd(a)verisign.com, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Olof Nordling <Olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.ullrich(a)icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <Acct-staff(a)icann.org>, aso(a)icann.org, Bart Boswinkel <Bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, David Olive <David.olive(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <Marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < Carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Steve.sheng(a)icann.org, Mathieu Weill < mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, SSAC SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Dear Bernard, All, The ccNSO Council supports the suggestion to limit the scope of the ATRT3 review. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> Date: Friday 27 January 2017 12:29 To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, <ASO-chairs(a)aso.icann.org>, Louie Lee < louie(a)louie.net>, <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, <bverd(a)verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Olof Nordling <Olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.ullrich(a)icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <Acct-staff(a)icann.org>, <aso(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel < Bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, David Olive <David.olive(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings < Marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <Carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, < Steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker < steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, SSAC SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder [+SSAC] Dear Bernard, My apologies for missing you actually had a question at the end. I interpreted the message as a description of the situation, which SSAC already have said we are comfortable with. The SSAC supports the proposal from the CCWG-A Co-Chairs that the scope of ATRT3 be restricted to a review of the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Patrik Fältström SSAC Chair On 25 Jan 2017, at 21:41, Bernard Turcotte wrote: SO and AC Chairs, This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below) regarding the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be publishing its call for volunteers by the end of January. As stated in the proposal there are a number of significant overlaps between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review which would cause an important duplication of work between these two processes. The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed as a standard review. The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the SO's and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: > Dear SO & AC Chairs, > > The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 > in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and > therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex > 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). > > In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: > > · Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential > for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of > the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could > also consider. > > · Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an > objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is > expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in > January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the > new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for > every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these > activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the > same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could > issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. > > · Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give > CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, > relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. > > While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as > communicated in our 8-Aug-2016 letter > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann…> > to the Board of ICANN: > > Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing > implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new > recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would > convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency > topics and make recommendations > > The ICANN Board replied > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-…> > to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, > > It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community > review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of > resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in > determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. > The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community’s > direction. > > Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the > following approach: > > • Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new > Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated > in or closely tracked ATRT2. > > • Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" > reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or > implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by > ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. > > • Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that > are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). > > • Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly > than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six > months > > If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next > steps would be: > > • SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN > CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and > articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community > > • Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise > sought > > • Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them > to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team > > • Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks > the limited Scope > > > > Best regards, > > Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill > > CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > Acct-Staff mailing list > Acct-Staff(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff > >

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #8_ 2 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #8 – 2 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MgC4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check Audio only: Jeff Neuman, Greg Shatan, George Sadowsky. Roll call will be taken from AC room. No SOI updates. 2. Update on working draft Document A version 1.3. Jordan is rapporteur on this document (main item at 16 Feb meeting) Document, open to comments and suggested edits, can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wGRrJZ-i7WA0uYBIHaB5Q3ssqfRmbAcgHJwlQ6s… Marked up from previous version available for review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wXuZw-VFeMLT3B5UHLU_nY1SWyzp6-VLeVZF1FY… Very few people have edited the document so far. Document will be kept open on-line one more week, and will be reviewed by the subgroup during the next call, on Feb 16. 3. Detailed Discussion of Responses to Staff questions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ELuw6i3mGAjnZBe0Vc_lraNQrWw5m_I6UyipEHa… • Avri: Answers have been mostly contributed by Klaus. Encourage others to contribute. Not sure if we have alignment between document A and the answers provided here. • Julf Helsingius: Yes, ICANN.org tends to promote ICANN, not the community • Jeff Neuman: FYI - The registries have some thoughts on Question 1 that we will be submitting. The registries have been in discussion with ICANN staff. There have been situations where ICANN has tried to push their views without going through the multistakeholder process. • Jeff: Why did ICANN respond to our questions with more questions? what is ICANN going to do with these answers? seems very defensive from ICANN to answer our questions with more questions. Does it mean they won't participate in these discussions unless we answer their questions? • Greg Shatan: this discussion shows the challenge of staff accountability. Difficult to balance out accountability and transparency and necessity to make business decision. • George Sadowsky: speaking as board liaison for this group. I am in LA, so I can try to better understand what is going on here and reach out to staff. • Phil Corwin: I haven't had the same experience but I don't represent contracted parties. I would like to see listed under question 1 a specific example, ie request for reconsideration filed in 2016. • Avri: there are many bilateral issues, I'd like to encourage people to voice them out. • George: are these isolated incidents? • Philip Corwin: At a certain point a series of isolated incidents constitutes a clear pattern of behavior experienced by a broad cross section of the community • Jeff Neuman: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/a6/I57%20HYD_Sun06Nov2016-Board%20w… ,[schd.ws] starting on page 30 and continuing pretty much to the end we talk about the seemingly adversarial relationship between the contracted parties and the ICANN staff • Philip Corwin: In regard to question 3, perhaps we should ask staff to identify specific instances in which they have not been treated in a respectful manner, because I can't recall witnessing any. 4. Discussion/Seeking feedback on First Draft Document B Avri is rapporteur on this document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnkJuukv0px-CfIDgLrjdDZa2CpBvSahPvAXdYY… Avri: encouraging people to contribute to this document too. 5. Schedule check We have slipped on our schedule. Jordan and I need to recalibrate. 6. AOB

1 0

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

Feb. 1, 2017

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

6 8

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #11 | 31 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #11 | 31 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ra3DAw 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<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ NOTES (including relevant parts of the chat): Roll Call Review of Actions items · We'll share the document about Global Account again through the mailing list, and are asking the subgroup to provide input, · Action (Nathalie) send a reminder to Chris Gift to send documentation to the subgroup about Global enrollment · Action (Sebastien): send an email to the mailing list to summarize the discussion about role of ombuds office in collecting diversity data for those who missed the last call, and get a conversation going on the mailing list Review of Draft questionnaire - Diversity Questionnaire - Finalization & sending to CCWG Plenary - Reaching SO/AC · Renata asking that question that was deleted be re-included · Julie: questions 1 and 2 have been put back in · Renata: I see that they were re-ordered, but are there, so this is good · Rafik: there are comments from Corinne, let's see if we can incorporate those comments and finalize the questionnaire · Julie: I agree with Corinne about question 4 · Renata: I think it is clear enough as it is written now Suggest to keep the question as it is. · FIONA ASONGA 2: Yes we keep the question · Amal Al-saqqaf: maybe we should remove it · Sebatien: we don't need to be too specific. Suggest adding the following after the question: "How is it done?" · Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I do not oppose a follow up question · FIONA ASONGA 2: I agree with Sabastien's amendment · Julie: that's fine, seems like a majority agrees with this suggestion · Action (drafting team): amend the question 4 with the amendment discussed today, and give until Friday for the group to confirm we have reached consensus. Strawman document: moving to initial report drafting · Fiona: we are reformatting the strawman according to the template provided for the report. Asking the group to provide comments about the document. · Renata: what is the deadline for this, and do we have a drafting team? · Fiona: in terms of timing, the WS2 timeline is that we should start reviewing a 1st draft starting in February, so we are right on time if I manage to circulate a document today. There are several elements from recommendation #12 that still need to be discussed. All comments from previous discussions have been included in the report. · Renata: we should discuss more the suggestion to use the office of ombudsman, and should use the month of February to discuss also the other components that we haven't yet discussed. · Rafik: to clarify, we haven't had a detailed discussion about the office of diversity. We need to have this discussion, which is why we have an action item about that. · Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I'd be quite clear we need to address the need for a diversity office in ICANN. And how it can work w/ current structures like ombudsman office and this group. · Dalila Rahmouni: Yes we need to see all the options for the office · Renata: we should think about the visa problem, the problem of accessibility, remote participation, and broad inclusion. AOB · Rafik: We are scheduling the next calls for February, invitations will come out soon.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20170208-Agenda and Documents - AMENDED
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Amended version including a few last minutes changes - apologies for any confusion: All, As per our new procedures for plenary meetings please find below the agenda and materials for the 1300UTC 8 February plenary meeting: Plenary Agenda (1300 Wednesday 8 February 2017): 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration • Review of action items from previous meeting • Update on ATRT3 (5 minutes). • Working Methods (10 minutes). 3. Legal Committee Update • There are no pending requests. 4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Human Rights – Update (5 minutes) • Jurisdiction Questionnaire update (5 minutes) • Good Faith Guideline – First Reading (document - 30 minutes) • Transparency – Second Reading (Document – 30 minutes) 5. Review of Schedule/Timeline (30 minutes) 6. AOB There are two attached documents: - Guidelines for Good Faith - first reading. - Transparency - second reading. Slides used for the plenary meeting will be available for download on the WS2 Wiki after the meeting. Thank You Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for the Co-Chairs

1 0