March 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

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

Oct. 30, 2017

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

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #16 | 31 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 31, 2017

March 31, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #16 – 31 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/1LDRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. 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/> [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 9 Participants at start of call. 1. Roll Call 2. Status of Action Items Fiona Asonga - both completed. Review of participants to the drafting team. Bernard Turcotte – Co-Chairs have made the request to ICANN for interpretation of Diversity meetings. Please note that within a few weeks all CCWG-Accountability meeting will have English captioning at least until the end of June 2017. 3. Work plan with regards to plenary feedback Fiona Asonga - We have been asked to reconsider when we publish the questionnaire by the co-chairs. We should post the questionnaire to receive general input as well as to the SOACs. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: 42 days for public comments Julie Hammer (SSAC): Could we ask for 42 days, even though not a public comment, recognising that we cannot dictate. avri doria: if we can't impose a date, then any date we suggest should be fine Fiona Asonga - would recommend 42 days for responses to questionnaire. Should we translate? Julia Charvolen: The question came from the LAC region in the GAC. One of the GAC representatives from the LAC region proposed to translate the questionnaire in Spanish. Julia Charvolen: The GAC Leadership asked the question about the questionnaire being translated Amal Al-Saqqaf: I don't think so Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: I always support translations Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: i think before their answer so their members need to understand the questionnaire Julie Hammer (SSAC): Is it an option to post the English version first and follow up with translations? Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: in their language (French ...) avri doria: ummm, once we start to translate, one can wonder why discriminate against any language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: FR ES EN as a min, best if can be 6 UN if possible plus Portuguese Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: we need to show the diversity that we defend now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: do remember we are the DIVERSITY WG avri doria: otherwise it can look like we only care about diversity of some non english speakers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: yup avri doria: i.e. wee work in parallel? Amal Al-Saqqaf: agree with that but it depends on the plan of the diversity subgroup deadlines avri doria: of course taking a sevral month vaca from diversity work, can work as well. Andreea Brambilla: Agreed, we incorporate responses as they come in. But final responses will be required to confirm status quo, views of SOs/ACs etc Julie Hammer - work in parallel is what we have committed to do and makes sense given timing. Fiona Asonga - any objections/ (none). So the drafting team will clean up the document which will give time to have 3 readings and the readjust the document. Once everyone is comfortable we can send it to the plenary. Bernard Turcotte - Staff can assist with editing the document if the team wishes. 4. A.O.B Fiona Asonga - Any AOB's? (none) Adjourned. Decisions: * Request the Co-Chairs send the questionnaire to the SOACs in English ASAP requesting a response in 42 days. * Request the Co-Chairs publish the questionnaire similarly to the Jurisdiction questionnaire in all the ICANN languages + Portuguese requesting a response in 42 days from the date of publishing. * The Diversity sub-group will not interrupt its work on publishing a draft set of recommendations for June 2017 while the questionnaire is active. Action Items: * Fiona Asonga – to write to Co-Chairs requesting publication of the questionnaire per the decisions on this. * Fiona Asonga – to write to drafting group to clean up current draft to begin work with the objective of completing a first draft for public comment by ICANN59. Diversity meetings to the end of June o Friday 31 March 1900 o Thursday 6 April 1300 o Thursday 13 April 1300 o Thursday 20 April 1300 o Wednesday 26 April 1300 o Thursday 4 May 1300 o Friday 12 May 1300 o Thursday 18 May 1300 o Thursday 25 May 1300 o Thursday 1 June 1300 o Thursday 8 June 1900 o Thursday 15 June 1900 o Thursday 22 June 1900

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #15 | 29 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 31, 2017

March 31, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #15 – 29 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0LbRAw 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 [cid:image001.png@01D2AA32.4AC70790] Action items: · Staff to write to plenary list to inquire who is preparing to respond, or knows of people/groups who will, to the Good Faith and Transparency Public Consultations. · Staff to publish SOAC Accountability Draft Recommendation for public consultation summarizing the issues around removing Mutual from MAR in the Announcement. · Diversity sub-group to decide how to proceed with the survey. · Greg Shatan to prepare an update for the next plenary on the Jurisdiction sub-group process, current work approach and progress. Notes: (including relevant portions of chat) 26 Participants at start of call Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior Thomas Rickert - Now a member of NIC AT advisory Board. Will update SOI. Review of Agenda Kavouss Arateh - Need to reconsider the work of the Jurisdiction group progress and methods at the level of the plenary. Mathieu Weill - propose initial discussion in AOB and prepare a full intervention for the next plenary. Any objections? (none) Avri Doria: One value in Mathieu’s approach is that it allows all the protagonists to show up for the conversation. Avri Doria: but we should have the conversation and not avoid having the discussion Administration Patrick Dodson - We will be turning on captioning for all WS2 calls in the short term as a follow on to the Captioning trial earlier this year. Will consider if we still need the transcription service later on. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): captioning will be a great asset. FIONA ASONGA: + Cheryl, Patrick Leon Sanchez: This is a "yes we can" moment :-) avri doria: captioning is great. will help a lot when attending overlapping meetings. Sebastien Bachollet - any link of captioning with the interpretation request from Diversity? Also on public comment type things the Ombuds team is working with the evaluator who was been interviewing people and will also publish a questionnaire at then end of the week. Patrick Dodson: Sebastien, two different topics, and we are still circulating the official request for interpretation internally. Patrick Dodson: Coordinating with language services and PCST. Mathieu Weill - Action Item - Staff to ask the plenary list if members know of people preparing input for the public comments. Decision – Captioning will be provided for all WS2 meeting including sub-groups. Action Item – Staff to write to plenary list to inquire who is preparing to respond, or knows of people who will, to the Good Faith and Transparency Public Consultations. Legal Committee Update Leon Sachez - Pending is the Jurisdiction questions. Have asked for an update from ICANN legal this week but have yet to receeive a reply. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups SO/AC Accountability - Second Reading Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Thanks to all for the contributions. Steve DelBianco - (presentation of red-line version from the first reading). https://community.icann.org/x/lBWOAw Christopher Wilkinson - Prefer we use Gender Balance - Also want to know what happened to MART. Steve DelBianco - CW - for Diversity we are waiting for the Diversity sub-group to complete their work. as to the MART this is the next part of the topic. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): so it acts as a placeholder for any outcomes of the Diversity WT in our dimensions reference Greg Shatan: We should clarify that SO/AC reviews should also take these best practices into account. Jordan Carter: Steve, I think the way that you've included this and taken the feedback from the plenary on board makes sense. it's probably about as far as can be gone at this point. Kavuss Arasteh - In the Outreach - the membership ranking - what is this? What about REQUIRED at the end? Steve DelBianco - there is no ranking of memberships. We also have not used REQUIRED. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Kavouss, just did a double check in the doc on "require". I confirm Steve's statement. Steve DelBianco: we can just drop "ranks" from that sentence Farzaneh Badii: I agree with dropping ranks on page 7 Steve DelBianco: on pages 7-8 we recommend that ICANN place these Best Practices in the Policies & Procedures for Reviews Julie Hammer - re MART - remember people wanting to add to this recommendation. I was unware that we were considering bringing back MART which I do not agree with - I think the original recommendation from the group was not objected by that many people. Steve DelBianco - Our original recommendation was that there was no requirement to implement, The new text has it as an option. Izumi Okutani (ASO): I have the same impression as Julie while I was not physically attending the meeting and was attending remotely CW: Julie +1. I am supporting exchange of best practice and mutual transparency. However, mutual accountability could lead to conflicts of interest. Greg Shatan - JH makes a good point - mutual accountability seems to include more that what we are looking at which is just a discussion of areas of mutual accountability. Would suggest not calling a MART but rather a round table on mutual accountability. Julie Hammer (SSAC): +1 Greg. Absolutely agree. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - @GS - we agree as rapporteurs were going to consider changing the nomenclature. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Yes, agree to remove the term MART altogether. Jordan Carter - This is just about putting accountability on the agenda - we can change the name. Sebastien Bachollet - really feel accountability must be mutual. We need this. CW: @ Julie. Now I get it! There is NO WAY SSAC is 'accountbaile' to the other SOAC. I want to see an independent SSAC. avri doria: in fact the notion of mutual accountabilty seems almost a fundamental part of the multistakeholder enterprise. Jordan Carter: if icann's culture would turn a "mutual" approach into unpleasant and unconstructive point scoring, we have to change the culture - starting with a broad based conversation might start that. Kavouss Arasteh - Support SB. Steve DelBianco: True, CW. We can remove "mutual" so that the conversation / roundtable is about sharing experiences with accountability TO THEIR DESIGNATED COMMUNITIES Jordan Carter: CW: but other SOs and ACs can and should be able to quiz SSAC on decisions it makes within ICANN - and vice versa too. Julie Hammer (SSAC): @CW SSAC should be accountable to the Board and the Community for the quality of its advice. Jordan Carter: Doesn't in the slightest compromise its independence. Julie Hammer (SSAC): @Jordan Yes, agree. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - we will take this back to the group for a look at the nomenclature. Julie Hammer (SSAC): @Jordan Yes, agree. Steve DelBianco: and we are dropping the word Ranks. avri doria: is it just an issue of nomenclature? Jordan Carter: Avri: my sense is that people don't want anyone questioning their decisions avri doria: i dis not hear a 'just nomenclature' discussion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that's part of it Avri Jordan Carter: I heard that that echoes in ICANN's current culture in a threatening way avri doria: Jordan, that may be the case. we would all prefer to be totally autonomous without any accountabilty. Wolfgang: Part of the Board Accountability discussion was the option to spill the board or to remove individual board directors. My question is did you discuss procedures how to remove individual council or committee members? avri doria: accountabilty to the whole. avri doria: Wolfgang< i do not beleive removing council members of other reps was discussed. Jordan Carter: I think this sub-group decided not to apply those powers to SO and AC or subgroups Thomas Rickert - Looking to remove MUTUAL and RANKING. With those two changes in mind any objections to accepting this as a second reading? Sebastien Bachollet - Do not agree. avri doria: i will support sebatien on this Thomas Rickert - given there are no other objections except AD and KA. As such we will consider this accepted for a second reading. Would invite those people to put in a comment in the public comment on this document. Sebastien Bachollet - do not agree and should not go to public comment. Thomas Rickert - SB this is not our process where only a minority object blocks publication. This has followed our process and been accepted per that process. Steve DelBianco - Am confident the sub-group would accept dropping MUTUAL. So there is no purpose in the SB request as the sub-group was never comfortable recommending the MART. Avri Doria - will join SB that we need mutual accountability. Do not agree we take out MUTUAL (procedural POV). If we want to edit it it needs to go back to the group. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Thomas, I think there has been ample discussion in the subgroup as well as in the plenary at this point. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Publishing this document and seeking the reactions of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations on this issue would be helpful. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Support your proposed way forward. John Laprise: +1 Avri & Sebastien Cheryl Langdon-Orr - We could publish as is. Izumi Okutani (ASO): I agree with the suggested way forward by Cheryl and Thomas. Avri's comment on bringining to attention makes sense Thomas Rickert - Agree with AD - so recommend we make clear in the public consultation about the discussion around Mutual. Any objections? (1 SB). Accepted as a second reading. So not full consensus but consensus. Sebastien Bachollet - I did put up a red cross and oppose strongly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - disagree with SDB on interpretation. Thomas Rickert - I do not think this document needs to go back to the sub-team as there are only two edits - remove RANK and Mutual. Additionally in the announcement we will clearly mention that there was a debate on having the word Mutual. Do not see a need for revision of the sub-team. avri doria: I vote against Steve's understanding. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): happy to support your way forward Thomas Izumi Okutani (ASO): + 1 Cheryl avri doria: i do not support. but give up. for today. Greg Shatan: There can be two concepts of mutual accountability: (1) Each SO/AC to each other SO/AC (multiple bilateral accountabiloity) or (2 avri doria: i support the second option as well Lori Schulman: Agree with Greg and Avir Diversity questionnaire - second reading - Fiona Asonga - (Presentation of edited document - sound issues) Leon Sanchez - (presentation of document) objections to this being a successful second reading? (none). Julie Hammer (SSAC): This version incorporates all the suggestions and feedback from the Plenary in CPH. avri doria: there was not agreement on tis in the subgroup as far as i know. what good is the report before the questionnaire? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: +1 FIONA ASONGA 2: We did as a subgroup discuss and agree to proceed with the questionnaire first Renata Aquino Ribeiro: option 1 avri doria: i asume we want the questionnaire answered. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: publish the questionnaire to get answers FIONA ASONGA 2: The questionnaire needs to be answered to guide us on the recommendations Julie Hammer (SSAC): Sorry Bernie, I missed that subtle difference. FIONA ASONGA 2: I would seek advise on what the minimun period for public comments is as required within ICANN Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: 42 days Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: BUt request to SO/AC take 2 to 3 months Renata Aquino Ribeiro: how long did the so/ac questionnaire take? Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: See precedent of SO/AC Acct Renata Aquino Ribeiro: our questionnnaire has 1/3 the size FIONA ASONGA 2: Ok then that means we will just have to go out with some draft recomendations Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: That was the rationale in Copenhagen Renata Aquino Ribeiro: sorry Leon didn't get that FIONA ASONGA 2: The challenge is that the recommendations will not have been though t through in view of the responses Mathieu Weill - We have accepted the questionnaire at the second reading and would ask the sub-group to consider how to proceed with it taking into account the timelines. FIONA ASONGA 2: The Action Item for the diversity group is acceptable Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Thanks Fiona Next Plenary AOB Mathieu Weill - onto AOB. Kavouss Arasteh - (no audio) Mathieu Weill - would GS be prepared to give an update on the progress and the workplan at the next plenary? Action Item. Greg Shatan - agree. Mathieu Weill - adjourned. Adjournment Decisions: Captioning service will be provided for all WS2 meeting ASAP SOAC Accountability draft recommendations successfully completed second reading and should be published for public consultation with the following conditions: Remove RANK and Mutual (in MAR) Public Consultation Announcement should summarize the issues around removing Mutual from MAR. Diversity Questionnaire successfully completed second reading. The Diversity sub-group will consider at its next meeting how to proceed with this.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 28 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 – 28 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/g67RAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2A969.FB5CAA20] Action Items: · Staff-GS – Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff to create email address for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff-GS To send doodle poll to arrange for a meeting of the Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 13 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - (no objections) 3. Administration a) Changes to SOIs (none) b) Questions to ICANN Legal – Status (awaiting response) 4. Questionnaire Update a) Status of current responses – no new responses b) Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team i) Responsibilities (1) Updating the Subgroup on new responses and their status at each meeting (2) Proposing an evaluation framework for responses (a) Responses received will help guide creation of evaluation framework Christopher Wilkinson - I responded but my name does not seem to have been accepted. Greg Shatan - will add. (b) To be approved by the Subgroup ii) Mail list to be created iii) Meeting to be scheduled – Doodle poll to follow 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a) Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - (no changes) b) Review of Summary Sheet (document) c) Review of Summaries i) Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr - ICANN used to put in a choice of law claue in its contracts which it does not do anymore. ii) State of AZ vs NTIA V2 - MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Greg Shatan - did the court rule on the jurisdiction argument (MW - no mention of it). Any questions? (none). iii) Ben Haim v. Iran – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr: there was a long discussion in the cases regarding which attachment law (state) applied Becky Burr: DC or California Mathieu Weill: I'll check the case and extract the relevant parts Becky Burr: not WOULD have, but potentially could have Becky Burr: because the plaintiffs sought the attachment in DC David McAuley (RySG): just getting wind of this discussion - in the case on screen I think coutrt applied DC law which is a tad unusual on attachment Becky Burr: so the plaintiff controlled here Becky Burr: yes, David, you and I are on the same wavelength Greg Shatan - should we add a field to the form about alternate jurisdictions. Mathieu Weill - Do not think we should theorize about this - we just do our analysis and then look at statistics they yield. Becky Burr: correct Mattieu David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mathieu Greg Shatan - Agree we should not do studies beyond what is provided in the materials. 6. AOB Greg Shatan - (none) 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan - Adjourned. Decisions (none)

1 0

Apology..
by Jordan Carter March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Hi all I seem through user error of my calendar to have accidentally invited some group of CCWG participants to a dinner tonight. My apologies for the mistake :( Best Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

3 4

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment. The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are: remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32. The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input: A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017 To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including: Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN. For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…” Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented. Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs. Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices. We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1 Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

6 8

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #12 _ 30 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #12 - 30 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/JbDRAw 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<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=DwMFAg&…> ________________________________ NOTES 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check 2. Debrief from ICANN 58 * The full plenary discussion and results * Discuss staff engagement in group with Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Comment from George - "do we think we can achieve the frank level of discussion necessary in open sessions?" Avri - that is the intention and we will monitor as we go along. 3. Plan going forward * Discussions with staff * Early engagement of co-rapporteurs with specific senior staff * Inclusion of a number of senior staff members in the group work as within their work scope. * Policy of 'non-retaliation' for all participants * Issue analysis collection * Issue analysis table at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utRO… * Discuss relation to 3 current documents George - "it will be important to define the goals of these discussions to avoid protracted conversations that lose focus" Avri and Patrick both highlighted the framework of the issues tracker and the approach of determining root cause issues before moving into discussion of solutions or mechanisms. 4. Schedule update * Deadline for issues submission Deadline for issues submissions was set for next Thursday, 6 April. Next call scheduled for next Friday, 7 April, 5:00 UTC Avri taking action item to coordinate future calls to ensure weekly calls through April in order to achieve first plenary reading by mid-May. 5. AOB none

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-Meeting-20170329 Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

All, Here is the agenda for the Wednesday 29 March 1300 plenary. Adobe room as usual is https://participate.icann.org/accountability Agenda: 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration - Staffing changes - Review of action items from previous meeting - DashBoard data and completion dates. - Status on open public comments. 4. Legal Committee Update - Jurisdiction sub-group questions to ICANN Legal. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups - SOAC Accountability - Second reading (updated document) - Diversity Questionnaire - Second reading (updated document) 6. Next Plenary - Wednesday 12 April 1900UTC - Documents due 5 April 23:59UTC 7. AOB 8. Adjournment Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-Ws2

5 5

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #15 | 23 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #15 – 23 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/O6vRAw 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) [cid:image001.png@01D2A3C2.6AEE9810] Action Items: · FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. · FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group. Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 12 Participants at start of call 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items: * RD will update the questionnaire and transmit to plenary list for inclusion for face to face meeting. (completed) * RD to poll group for languages needed for interpretation and send request to plenary by 7 March 2359 UTC requesting interpretation services for these. (completed) 3. Review feedback from Copenhagen meeting Questionnaire Fiona Asonga - circulated new version of questionnaire on 12 March. Any questions or queeries? (none). Consensus of first reading. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: yes Dalila RAHMOUNI 2: yes Julie Hammer - do we need a second reading? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: take it to Plenary on 29 the.... fine by me Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes Bernard Turcotte - Plenary expecting draft recommendations and the questionnaire. Julie Hammer - questionnaire should be separate and go to the plenary. Fiona Asonga - Have been asked to include draft recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - need to get a questionnaire to next plenary on 29 March and we will get the recommendations to a following plenary and then publish both together. Fiona Asonga - Propose we are with approach by CLO? (no objections). Decision – Submit questionnaire to plenary for second reading at its 29 March meeting. Interpretation Bernard Turcotte - Have the 3 request for French and Spanish interpretation - need the schedule of calls to end of June to make the request. Fiona Asonga - working on schedule of calls to end of June (action item). Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Suggest Rafik and Fiona publish a draft schedule for May and June to the list and anyone with strong objections can post these. Fiona Asonga - will do. Action Item – FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. Report/recommendations Fiona Asonga - need more volunteers for the drafting group. Will send a request to the list Action Item – FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group. 4. AOB Julie Hammer - Concern about costing of the various proposals by the various WS2 sub-groups. Is our recommendation that there be an office of Diversity without considering all the requirements and impacts. My take away, perhaps, what needs to happen without proposing an organizational solution at this time. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Agree we have to follow process - send out questionnaire gather input and then seriously consider the recommendations. Avri Doria - Agree that organizational change is probably premature at this point. May not be premature to say we need a function in the organization without needing a formal organizational change. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Agree, Avri! Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: agree with avri Julie Hammer (SSAC): Yes, that is what I was trying to say! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Avri I like that idea of address too but yes discussing its shape later Fiona Asonga - will leave the Diversity Office item in the report but will note that for now that is simply a place holder for the idea. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: my green tick was up for Julie and Avri's innervations, yes Julie Hammer (SSAC): Suggest we describe it functionally, not organizationally, as Avri said. Fiona Asonga - any further items? (none). Actions items present questionnaire at 29 plenary, finalize schedule to end of June ASAP to get interpretation request sent - send a request for participants to join the drafting team - the report will note that the recommendation for a Diversity office is simply a place holder for now. Decisions: · Submit questionnaire to plenary for second reading at its 29 March meeting. · Note in the current version of the report that the recommendation for a Diversity office is simply a place holder for now. Action Items: · FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. · FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group.

1 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 27 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #24 here; https://community.icann.org/x/3rnRAw 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) [cid:image001.png@01D2A71A.84FB3690] Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 15 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - Changes to SOI? (none). Any issues to agenda? (none) 2. Continued First Reading (of two) of the Considerations document Niels ten Oever - (continuing where we left off last week - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8… ) Niels ten Oever - (strating from The Policies and frameworks.....- reading text of proposal). Para 1 comments? (none). Para 2 comments? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): As per Niels, to be added at the end of this paragraph: "Human Rights should not be selectively analyzed since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Kavouss Arasteh - re INAPPROPRIATE suggest use another word - DOES NOT SEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE HERE or NOT RELEVANT HERE. Tatiana Tropina: "not relevant in the context of this FoI" Tatiana Tropina: or doesn’t not fit for the purpose of this FoE Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Tatiana's suggestion on this Tatiana Tropina: I can live with this, agree with Kavouss to replace Anne Aikman-Scalese - my suggestion above seems to go somewhere else? Niels ten Oever - correct 2 paras down. Greg Shatan - re INNAPROPRIATE would prefer to simply add HERE. Re AAS suggestion - better to say it here? cannot just apply suggestion to HRIA - so should probably be here and not later or here and later. John Laprise: Agree w/Greg Niels ten Oever: Text to which Greg and Anne are referring: Niels ten Oever: Human Rights should not be selectively analyzed since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. could agree to put it either or in both. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): is "analyzed" the right word? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): or should we use "considered"? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "should not be considered in isolation, since they are..." Tatiana Tropina - NOT APPROPRIATE - Niels ten Oever: The subgroup notes that the word “commitment” used in this sentence is not appropriate of interpreting the Human Rights Core Value. Tatiana Tropina: in the conext of interpreting HR CV Kavouss Arasteh - Do agree with GS word. Support JC proposal. Niels ten Oever: The subgroup notes that the word “commitment” used in this sentence is not quite appropriate for interpreting the Human Rights Core Value. Seems to be acceptable (no objections). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): full text for the non-cherry-picking: "Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Niels ten Oever - JC text could be added at the end. Anne Aikman-Scalese - fine with JC language. Also like TT languae before. Tatiana Tropina: I am comfortable with no cherry picking clause. I would avoid proportionality as it's up to courts and it is a very complex issue - we have to get to the weeds and will never come back. But am comfortable with cherry picking. Greg Shatan - re JC text - need to say EACH or individual - best to try using the language in Annex 6 which is consensus language. Andrew Mack: individual human rights should not be considered separately Andrew Mack: ? Tatiana Tropina: Individual human rights has double meaning in this context Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Good point Tatiana Tatiana Tropina: Might be considered as human rights of an individual Andrew Mack: yes Tatiana Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "discrete" is so awful? Tatiana Tropina: "No specific human right shall be considered in isolation" Greg Shatan - that would work. Kavouss Arasteh - do not understand why we need specific. Disagree with this. Agree with PARTICULAR but not SPECIFIC. Niels ten Oever: Particular Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Andrew Mack: either seems ok to me Niels ten Oever - Next para "consistent with ICANN's existing processes and...." Kavouss Arasteh - re gNSO portion just "allow" seems wrong should be " should or shall or must allow". Tatiana Tropina: expected to allow Tatiana Tropina: me likes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): it does already allow by the way Anne Aikman-Scalese - re CLO because the PDP says it must already. Markus Kummer - since the Bylaws say Allow lets keep it as is. Kavouss Arasteh - are we discussing the FOI or the PDP. If we use the PDP then let us quote and identify it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We could say "The GNSO Policy Development Process" provides for Greg Shatan - Agree with AAS. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with Anne Tatiana Tropina: it should address Kavouss concern, too - no? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Kavouss Arasteh - Agree with AAS suggestion. Neils ten Oever - next para "consider how the interpretation and implementation....". Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): One suggestion here to avoid the issue of "principles of proportionality" expressed in the drafting team is to do this:"HRIAs should avoid "cherry-picking" and should honor the principle that Human Rights are indivisible and interdependent." Kavouss Arasteh - cannot understand AAS proposal - why do we need this? Tatiana Tropina: I like Anne's compromise. Honoring the invisibility and interdependency is ol Anne Aikman-Scalese - could agree with KA - we could go back to the original language. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): could we refer back to the language we agreed just before? tatiana Tropina - like AAS compromise - uncertain about the word "principal". will put my suggestion from the chat. Niels ten Oever: HRIA should consider not consider Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Niels ten Oever: HRIA should not consider Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): HRIA should be consistent with the principle that specific Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Tatiana Tropina: yes we can do that as well - Anne? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): should not consider "particular" Human rights Niels ten Oever: HRIA should not consider particular Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Niels ten Oever: HRIAs should not consider particular Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Tatiana Tropina: yes am very happy too. I can't believe my ears and eyes Anne Aikam-Scalese - Drafting team note that there is a need to have a mechanism to consider how to address HR violations. Uncertain where it goes. Greg Shatan - where "policies and processes ICANN needs to implement..." Niels ten Oever - lets take this to the drafting team and review on our call next week. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree with Niels Greg Shatan: +1 Kavouss Arasteh - Re from GAC meeting - do not see all SOACs the same and not pick on GAc only. Niels ten Oever - thought it was fixed - if not lets discuss on list. KA please send to list. Ajourned.

1 0