March 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

TR: GNSO Council Input on Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3
by Mathieu Weill March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear Colleagues, FYI please find attached the input from the gNSO Council regarding the scope of ATRT3, following our correspondence. Best Mathieu De : Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org] Envoyé : lundi 6 mars 2017 23:25 À : rickert(a)anwaelte.de; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill Cc : Bernard Turcotte; James Bladel; Austin, Donna; Heather Forrest; Marika Konings; Mary Wong; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Input on Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3 Dear CCWG-Accountability co-chairs, On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached the GNSO Council Input on the Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3. This document will also be published shortly here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…> From: <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:11 PM To: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] Please FORWARD the attached to those named in the list in the email Hello – the attached should be sent to: · The CCWG-Accountability co-chairs (Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill) and their staff support (Bernard Tucotte) · The other SO/AC chairs · MSSI staff (Larisa Gurnick, Margie Milam, Karen Mulberry) And posted on the GNSO Correspondence webpage. Thanks! Cheers Mary _______________________________________________ Gnso-secs mailing list Gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-secs

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #18 | 06 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #18 - 06 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/EqrRAw 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): 1. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome 2. Report from staff external review of the ICANN Ombudsman Office - Lars went over the RFP vendor assessment for the Ombudsman Review. Overview of the procurement process that was unertaken to review the bidders and determine after assessmemnt by several members against the criteria that was identified. The most important element was understanding and knowledage of Ombudsman and ICANN. When over the evaluation criteria that was used. After review contracted with Cameron Ralph LLC to conduct the review of the Ombudsman. For additional information see Cameron Ralph, LLC in case anyone needs it - http://crkhoury.com.au[crkhoury.com.au]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__crkhoury.com.au&d=DwMFa…>/ - Vendor will be attend the ICANN58 meeting in Copenhagen. Potential for Subgroup to hold a call with the vendor and discussion relevant detaials that might be relevant for the review. Possible meeting at ICANN58 with vendor and subgroup particpants. Questions raised: Asha - Budget who is paying for vendor travel, ICANN will pay for travel and the dates are Friday (10) to Tuesday (14). They will be available to meet during these times. CLO - noted prior experience with vendor, however the report was for adAU Board on governance Sebastien - potential issues, raised questions with prior work and assessment Asha - question on expertise - review slide on expertise of vendor. Can the cost of the review be shared? Will investigate if the cost can be shared for transparency. Will share what can be shared. Sebastien- Did you know of the selected vendor's role in auAD work on goverance? Will need to check into list of expernences and will provide response. Lars - can a call be arranged for Tuesday with the vendor? Asha - question on timeline for the assessment. Response still within the boundary's of the timeline estimate. All canidates were asked if they could be flexible and work longer on the reivew if more time was determined to be needed, in particular if the WS2 timeline was extended. Discussion raised the importance of having a good report over staying with the current timeline. ACTION ITEM: Send out Doodle poll to select time to hols a call with the vendor on Tuesday (7 March), proposed 11 am in Australia NOTED that time for the call is a one time exception to the set WS2 call slots to accomodate holding the call with the vendor. Also suggestion to include 0500 UTC as a possilbe time slot for the call Question - do we need a face-to-face meeting with the vendor during ICANN58? ACTION ITEM - Work with Staff to arrange a meeting with vendor in Copenhagen, including a room. Potential to ask Herb to use the Ombudsman Office as the location for themeeting ACTION ITEM - develop a list of people to attend the meeting with the vendor - send a noteto subgroup list with some information to reivew and to send to Sebastien and Lars and list of people to reach out to. Sebastien noted disappointed that subgroup or a portion of the group was not involved in theselction process... Hope that in the future that others might be involoved 3. Possible road map and timeline 4. Review of the draft document prepared by Sebastien "ICANN Offices Ombudsman, Complaints &?" "5. Complaints" Offices 6. Next meeting - Calendar Reviewed the dates that have been scheduled for future meetings through May 2017 7. AOB Reviewed the work interdependencies with Ombudsman subgroup work

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelSupport-ICANN59Johannesburg-25June2017 Applications
by Bernard Turcotte March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

All Just another friendly reminder that many of us will start travelling to Copenhagen this week and that the application period for travel funding to ICANN 59 closes 23:59UTC Sunday 19 March following the close of ICANN 58. The travel application can be found at the end of the announcement email and has been copied at the end of this email for your convenience (reminder this is ONLY for Members or Rapporteurs - if you are uncertain please read the announcement). Details can also be found on the WS2 wiki at: https://community.icann. org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support+ICANN59 Bernard Turcotte Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 ========================================================== CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Supported Travel Request Form You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG-Accountability only if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are an officially listed Rapporteur for a WS2 sub-group. The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs will review the applications received, including the requests for partial support, and determine the list of approved CCWG members who will receive travel funding. The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 approved travel support list will be submitted to ICANN Constituency Travel for processing according to community travel guidelines Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency travel guidelines located at:https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/ Constituency+Travel+Home CCWG-Accountability-WS2 appointed Members or rapporteurs requesting consideration by the Co-Chairs for travel support to attend a face-to-face meeting must complete and submit the travel request form by the stipulated deadline in order to be considered for funding. Applicant Identification ======================== Name: Chartering Org or Rapporteur for which WS2 Group: Email address: Date of Request: Other sources of support ======================== Please indicate if you are receiving travel support from another organization to attend the ICANN meeting I am receiving support from another organization (yes or no): If you are not receiving support from another organization, please proceed to“Support requested from CCWG-Accountability”. If you are receiving support, please provide the information requested below: Name of the Organization(s) providing the support: Indicate type of support and how many days the support is provided (BY FUNDING ORGANIZATION): Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days): Support requested from CCWG-Accountability =========================================== Please indicate the type of travel support (including the number of days) you are seeking from the CCWG for WS2 - please remember this is only for attending the Face to Face meeting and is not for the entire ICANN meeting. Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days):

1 0

FW: Letter from the Registries and Registrars on Staff Accountability
by Jeff Neuman March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

All, I sent this to the Staff Accountability WS2 group, but thought that I would share with the broader community. We expect this letter to be posted on ICANN's Correspondence page at some point soon. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:21 PM To: ws2-staff_acct(a)icann.org Subject: Letter from the Registries and Registrars on Staff Accountability All, Please find enclosed a letter from the Registries and Registrars that relate to our work. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #14 | 3 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #14 – 3 March 2017 will be available here: 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@01D29446.E88704F0] Action Items: · RD will update the questionnaire and transmit to plenary list for inclusion for face to face meeting. · RD to poll group for languages needed for interpretation and send request to plenary by 7 March 2359 UTC requesting interpretation services for these. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 14 Participants at start of call 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items: - Rafik Dammak - resend of questionnaire was not sent but it has been updated. Would look for approval on the list before Copenhagen. Report from Chris Gift was distributed to the list - this will be discussed at a later meeting when CG is available. Rafik Dammak - only 1 comment on questionnaire. Will update and send for approval to the plenary by the required time. Action item: RD will update the questionnaire and transmit to plenary list for inclusion for face to face meeting. 3. Review of Draft Report: Rafik Dammak - How should we proceed? work on calls or work on the list between calls. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I think your 1st way fwd suggested is more likely to progress Sebastien (ALAC): We need to discuss some issues during our call Amal Al-saqqaf: I think yes there should be an aggregation of the contraversal issues in the report and ask in the mailing list to make a consensus on what should be written in the report, maybe. Avri Doria - Rapporteurs should list issues and try to fix. Rafik Dammak - Ok rapporteurs will list the issues and work on porposed solutions for discussions. Sebastien (ALAC): Maybe it is time for us to publish a second version of the draft? Rafik Dammak - should we set a target date? Sebastien Bachollet - Suggest that before the next call we publish a next version of the draft document and we discuss this on that call. Lousewies van der Laan: I agree Avri, it's useful to get feedback from the plenary, especially because that will encourage them to read the document. Lousewies van der Laan: There is no point in making a perfect diversity paper if we don't get buy in from the rest of the community Rafik Dammak - (presentation of the current document) Rafik Dammak: "Establish minimal diversity requirements for panels during events organized or funded by ICANN such as: No panel of more than 4 participants should include speakers from only one ICANN region No panel of more than 4 participants should include speakers from only one Gender Inclusion of 3 to 5 diversity enhancement targets (metrics) in the 5 year Strategic Plan as one of the key Strategic Initiatives. Such 5-year targets could be for instance: Ensure Africa and LAC each represent at least 15% of ICANN Community leadership Gender balance within ICANN.org<http://icann.org/> leadership should be aligned with ICANN.org<http://icann.org/> staff gender balance overall (roughly 40%)Aim for a more gender balanced ICANN Board Include the enhancement of diversity within the scope of the Structural Reviews of SOs and ACs. Include the enhancement of diversity within the scope of the ATRT review" Lousewies van der Laan: ICANN org had 53.8 % female staff, but only 28.6% females on executive team Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): sadly, not an uncommon statistical analysis in Organising and listed Companies Lousewies van der Laan: indeed Lousewies van der Laan: The 50-member senior management team is 62% male and 38% female. The Executive Team gender balance remains at 29% / 71% (female/male). Lousewies van der Laan: Question is what the ambition of different parts of the community are? Rafik Dammak: @lousewies you mean each part of community set its own inspirational goal? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as well as where gender diversity alone, needs to be considered Mathieu Weill: The proposals mentioned by Rafik include gender balance AND regional balance aspects I believe. Lousewies van der Laan: the question is how we strike a balance between getting the various parts of the community to embrace diversity and actively work on increasing diversity, filling their leadership pipeline etc and what an external officer could achieve? Sebastien Bachollet - Proposal for a 3rd office that reports to the community could have as one of its responsibilities diversity - just for discussion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed @Lousewives Lousewies van der Laan: @Rafik: Do we know if each SO/AC will embrace the targets this group is developing? There is obviously no sanction, so how do make sure we don't stick with beautiful words. Rafik Dammak - we should proceed by requirements and recommendations for this office. Lousewies van der Laan - On Board call there were requests as to what this office would be about. Authority of this person would need to be accepted by all the community - what is the added value - concern if this is pushed by one person or office is only looking at the ICANN context vs all the community and what would be the budget implications for something like this. avri doria: as if the corporation was always in the process of adding positions Lousewies van der Laan: to clarify: not the full board. the members who are the liaisons try to be in touch to compare notes - we call it the WS2 caucus Rafik Dammak - Good point LVL but this is still a strawman proposal which needs more work. We need to collect the information to see what is the need. Also office could define diversity criteria. Should take note of this and clarify this. Mathieu Weill: Lousewies, this feedback is quite useful. I guess there are concIt's always better when diversity initiatives are led by the CEOrete tasks to carry out (such as data collection) and also some leadership to demonstrate on day to day basis. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: i'd just note that many corporations have diversity offices, it's not a new practice so it does have accountability and practical tasks Lousewies van der Laan: @avri ; I see the history, but our new CEO is being very careful - he wants to make sure we can fund any new commitments and as a member of the Finance Committee I applaud that. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: CERN has a diversity office, for reference http://diversity.web.cern.ch/ Rafik Dammak: @Renata can you please add comment about examples of diversity offices? Sebastien Bachollet - First step is to gather data, if there is no data how to improve data collection and then to look at how to improve. This is not the time to talk about costs - are we scrutinizing the creation of the Complaints office this way? We are just trying to find the need to enhance accountability and diversity. Avri Doria - (audio issues) there is a duality to this office there is the staff side and then the community leadership - the second is more for our focus. Look at this function vs our needs, possibly in the policy group. Lousewies van der Laan: I think there is a difference between organisations or corporations that have a diversity officer/policy AND what I thought we were talking about: someone who can encourage diversity throughout the whole community. Or did I misunderstand? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the mere existence of such an office does not have a guaranteed close correlation with diversity results, but if it exists and is well supported and able to evangelise and facilitate as well as record and report Lousewies van der Laan: I seriously doubt any SO/AC would accept the authority of an ICANN staff member lecturing them on their internal diversity. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Lousewies van der Laan - Companies have diversity officer etc but for staff. If diversity is for the community elements, given our model is unique it would be very difficult to impose anything to those elements of the community - we need to focus on how to get there. Diversity has to be part of all segments of an organization - creating an extra position - is this the way forward given the uniqueness of ICANN. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: PwC likes to showcase its diversity office results via awards http://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/diversity/pwc-diversity-office.html avri doria: there is a duality to the role. Diversity office for the staff as a corporation. Mathieu Weill: @Lousewies : this seems to assume SO/ACs are not interested in finding ways to enhance diversity... ;-) Note that one recommendation in the doc is to include diversity as part of the structural reviews too avri doria: Diversity function helping the community achieve it goals - something the staff has a role in enabling - staff is always working with us on the rules of our constituencies, why wouldn't they help with a goal we think we need Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Is it possible to do this separation "surgery" as they are always interacting? avri doria: and for that to be consistent staff should have a function to help coordinate Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): so true it needs to be part of the DNA Herb Waye Ombuds: I think if we compare the Founding Fathers picture of Cerf, Postel and Crocker and the strings & tin cans, 3 American white men... ICANN is doing a pretty good job shifting culture to reflect the Internet and the iCANN world today. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Harvard office w/ students in the front page? http://diversity.college.harvard.edu/ avri doria: i thinnk office is not a toxic word and we should be speaking of function though it is becoming a toxic word Rafik Dammak - what kind of function that would respond the needs of the community. Many challenges and questions to respond to. Mathieu Weill - Interesting feedback from Board. Proposal for an office suffers from being the first proposal - while it should only be conceived as one step of a more general approach – RD will recirculate the paper and recommendations but these cannot begin with an office and I certainly understand the reaction of the Board. It starts with a goal, its starts with diversity being officially a goal, part of the strategic plan with specific initiatives as mentioned by LVL, specific targets and then there are tasks to track progress, share best practices that will be filled by the ICANN staff since these cannot be filled by volunteers in a sustainable way. I think this is where the Office – I think it has to change names – is going to fit. My suggestion is that we look at the whole set of recommendations and probably put on top the ones that are more inspirational and explain that the idea of an Office – or whatever it is called – is only part of the system that we are putting in place to enhance ICANN … and that we are tackling several aspects at a time and that this functions is only there to support the initiative – the leadership for this needs to come from the community, the Board the executive leadership of ICANN. Rafik Dammak - lets start with objectives - and yes change order, its just a means or tool to implement. Lousewies van der Laan: Matthieu said it correctly, needs to be reflected in notes Lousewies van der Laan: Excelent intervention Matthieu Amal Al-saqqaf: +1 Matthieu 4. AOB - - request for interpretation service Rafik Dammak - AOB we received a request a few days ago for interpretation services on our calls, given English is a barrier to participation for some in this work. We would like to send a request for interpretation to the plenary - would this be ok? Bernard Turcotte – Please note that any such request should be specific as to what your are requesting (how many languages etc.). Also, important to note that this falls under the ICANN portion of the budget and that it is not budgeted for in this current fiscal year. Even if the plenary approves this there is no guarantee the money can be found. Lousewies van der Laan: Interpretation would be good, but then lets also promote that we have it in those languages, in order to encourage others to join - If we do interpretation and no one uses is a waste - if we do it - we need to promote it. avri doria: there is also a live transcription experiment. that might be a good thing Renata Aquino Ribeiro: +1 Avri Lousewies van der Laan: have we ever received language requests? avri doria: and live transcription helps with speakers of a second language since it is non accented. Lousewies van der Laan: do we know if there are people who can’t join now and who would if we add a language? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): ALAC and At-Large has utilised real time Interpretation for years, and yes it is an issue that needs to be nurtured, do talk to At-Large Staff in this for background and captioning is another good tool. avri doria: and there is no budget should be the refrain for anything we want in WS2 Mathieu Weill: Lousewies : I think there was a request for French by Dalila (France GAC) Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I have a poll done in ncuc in half a day w/ 9 members wanting spanish interpretation for webinars and meetings avri doria: one wonders why we are doing this. Rafik Dammak - Re AD captionning pilot Lousewies van der Laan: @Matthieu :-) Renata Aquino Ribeiro: researching and promoting interpretation is v. important for this group. avri doria: i would like to see stats of how many use the translation in ALAC which has had it for a while. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: in lacralo we asked for it but not always the minority of french speakers could participate and i dont know if it continued Renata Aquino Ribeiro: i think polling was a suggestion to address having eventual interpretation Lousewies van der Laan: cost is important - but if do not start to experiment we will never understand what it can accomplish. If any group should do this to increase diversity it should be this one. If we do not experiment, we will never know - our experience could then inform the community - personally I would take on explaining that we have to support this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we started extensive use of Interpretation on ALAC back around 2009 so there is information there Bernard Turcotte – Rafik since the ask is quite specific I believe the Co-Chairs would be ok if the request came in a little late vs today’s deadline for plenary material – Tuesday next week would be ok I think and would allow you to survey your sub-group. Raffik Dammak – BT good. Will survey the group re languages and provide a request to the plenary for this. Adjourned. Action Item – RD to poll group for languages needed for interpretation and send request to plenary by 7 March 2359 UTC requesting interpretation for these Summary of Decisions and Action Items: Decisions – none

1 1

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Executive Summary: The SO/AC Accountability project for Work Stream 2 had its genesis at an early stage of the CCWG-Accountability track, when SO/AC representatives insisted on new powers to hold the ICANN corporation accountable to the global internet community. ICANN board members and staff then asked, “What about SO/AC accountability?“ And as one of our independent experts asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Those questions led to a creation of a Work Stream 2 project to review and recommend improvements to accountability, transparency, and participation within ICANN SOs, ACs, and Subgroups. This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group reached quick consensus: each AC and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each AC/SO was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws. This conclusion was the basis for Track 1 of our work: reviewing accountability, transparency, and participation with respect to the designated community of each SO/AC and Subgroup. We were keen to examine the extent to which SO/AC/Subgroups were reaching out to, and open to, members of their designated community who were not yet participating. In Track 1 we recommend 25 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We are not recommending changes to the ICANN bylaws to reflect these best practices, although we believe that future Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) should examine implementation of these best practices among AC/SO/Subgroups. In Track 2, we considered the suggestion for a “Mutual Accountability Roundtable,” originally described as a concept where “multiple actors are accountable to each other”. That concept clashed with the fundamental consensus that ICANN SOs and ACs are only accountable to the designated community they were created to serve and represent. On this basis, we recommend that a Mutual Accountability Roundtable not be formally implemented by ICANN. Track 3 was where we assessed whether the new Independent Review Process (IRP) should also become a tool to challenge AC and SO activities. On this question, we conclude that while the IRP could be made applicable by amending bylaws significantly, the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and  expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #11_ 2 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #11 – 2 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/OZ-RAw 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 [cid:image001.png@01D29410.DAEC9110] Notes including relevant portions of the chat): 10 Participants at start of call Avri Doria – Only item on the agenda is the review of the note from JC. Jordan Carter – (presentation of document) Avri Doria – do we have the issues right? Any comments? Cheryl Landon-Orr – articulation of the two primary issues is fine but doubt the plenary will have any wisdom for us. George Sadowsky – Issue 1 – you have a short term problem in establishing effective communication with staff – there may be a longer term problem. The short term problem can be solved but if there is a longer term one you are correct to raise it. Alan Greenberg – Agree with GS – Said differently this group having great difficulty in working with staff is indicative of the great difficulties we as volunteers in the community very often have in working with staff is VERY indicative. Jordan Carter – Do not see this as a lack of support – but this is different than the usual working method of volunteers developing a paper and then working with staff – here we have to work with staff during the development. This is an unusual way of working and calling it out may help get what we need. Avri Doria – Does not really capture the issues some groups are having with staff – and because people fear retaliation so do not want to formally provide input on this. Alan Greenberg – JC description how it should work is overly simplistic – a lot of the other things we do in working with staff trying to make things work overall requires a more interactive and collegial process which does not always happen. Greg Shatan: Alan's discussion highlights the kind of "deeper dive" we need to do as we narrow our focus from the meta-analysis of the first iteration. Jordan Carter: yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Jeff Neuman – Finally I can say we will publicly release a letter we have sent to the ICANN Board as a follow up to an original letter in December – we will not release the original given there are name cited in it – however the second letter contains principles and recommendations. Avri Doria – Maybe we need a 1A and 1B on how to work effectively. Jordan Carter – do not think so. Avri Doria – Any comments on the second point? George Sadowsky – Pleased to see how this is phrased and reflects the conversation of the last meeting. Suggest we use the issues that have come in the course of this work and what can be used to solve these things as they come up – this is pretty close to that. Jordan Carter: "Proposes solutions to resolve those problems or mechanisms that could resolve them as they arise from time to time". This should probably capture this. George Sadowsky – I like it. Specific complaints that have been made could be used in stress tests to see if the solutions work. Jordan Carter: the effect of the change would be, overall, to get us focused on the issues raised or identified, and solutions, or ways to prevent recurrence Jordan Carter: (the change of scope, that is) Avri Doria – Any other comments? (none) Jordan Carter: thanks all Jordan Carter: great feedback Jordan Carter: it feels like a more solid direction to be going Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): all good Avri Doria – any other points or comments (none). JC and I will finalize this document to send in to the plenary.

1 0

Staff Accountability subgroup - material for plenary on 10 March
by Jordan Carter March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Hi all Please find attached two documents: - a short and important request for input from the CCWG on the shape of the Staff Accountability subgroup's work - a long and working draft of one of our two documents. (It's a messy working draft with lots of comments and tracked changes, and may be most readable in the native google doc. That's linked in the first doc. *We really need your thinking caps on for the two issues in the request for input - we need to get creative about how to make our work more on point and achievable.* On the second document, we really need to get a broader set of eyes and views involved, but depending on the discussion on the shorter document the longer one may change fundamentally. Avri and I, and all the subgroup members, are looking forward to the discussion in Copenhagen. thanks Jordan co-Rapporteur, staff acct subgroup, CCWG WS2 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan(a)InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz *A better world through a better Internet*

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 02 MAR 17
by MSSI Secretariat March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

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

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #15 - 2 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #15 on 2 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/OYPRAw A copy of the 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@01D2934B.4C2A3330] Action Items: · DM to confirm to IOT when he would be available to meet members of the IOT in Copenhagen. · MH to summarize discussions on Timing point and post to the list for further discussion. · DM to summarize discussions on Parties and Joinder points and post to the list for further discussion. Notes (including relevant parts of the chat): 10 Participants at start if call 1. Administrivia a. Roll - no audio only b. SoI (none) 2. Considering Comments: David McAuley - Our job is becoming largely advisory wrt to the panel. However, the rules are our decisional role. Will try to get some space at ICANN 58 for a few hours so we can talk about this - will post a note to the group regarding. Avri Doria: what is the purpose of these private meetings? David McAuley - just making myself available to help people with analyzing the comments. Action Item: DM to confirm to IOT when he would be available to meet members of the IOT in Copenhagen. ii. Upcoming calls 10 (plenary), 23 and 30 March 3. Comments – Substantive discussions: David McAuley - we had provided a question to Sidley and they had confirmed there was a problem with the Timing issue. Since then MH has taken on looking at this issue. Over to MH for a discussion on the issue. Kavouss Arasteh - when we review the comments however the number of comments - does it justify changing our recommendation which were approved by the plenary. David McAuley - Note wrt to timing counsel has noted there is a timing so we have to consider this. the point is we consider the comments and respond to them - it does not mean that we have to agree with them. Malcolm Hutty - My understanding is different from KA - the plenary only approved that we should put this out for public comment and not they approved the USP. So we need to go through these. Kavouss Arasteh - This is the responsibility of approval by the CCWG-Accountability so how will we manage this? David McAuley - we are not a a sub-group of the CCWG-Accountability. David McAuley: I agree w/Malcolm on this part a. Timing for claim filing Malcolm Hutty - (review of MH document on this). Kavouss Arasteh - irrespective of if we agree to change this - I have never heard of a process that has no time limit like taxes - we should agree that the option of no limit is off the table. Malcolm Hutty - there have been two comments that we put a moratorium on this and publish without a limit for now and re-evaluate later. If we were to go with that - how would we do this - one way could be to remove any numerical time bar and say it is the responsibility of the Panel. Third option - no moratorium - we need a revised time bar that is consistent with the Bylaws which can be defended. (first option is not any time limit). So, the first question is do we put this off or not. Becky Burr - when you are talking about no time period - are we talking about repose or time to file? KA is correct that there is always a time limit like a statute of limitations. Malcolm Hutty - (the Business Constituency text on moratorium) so more than just about the repose. If we accept this we can stop this now - if not we need to go on. David McAuley - I would be opposed to what the proposal of a moratorium - a time limit which typically ensues for courts or ... Can we cur through this to say there is a time bar but the panel could rule that a claim could be brought beyond these time bars for reasons? Malcolm Hutty - this would handle most of the concerns. But would not satisfy the bias question. Becky Burr 2: I would be willing to dispense with an absolute repose, but very uncomfortable without a "statute of limitations" commencing from a knows or should have known standard Becky Burr 2: 6 months from the time you know or should know that you have/will be harmed Becky Burr 2: plus David's fundamental fairness caveat Kavouss Arasteh - not in favour of DM's proposal. I would suggest the we do the reverse of what is recommended by the Business Community - pick a time and promise to review within two years based on actual issues. Malcolm Hutty - KA proposal could be considered as being against the Bylaws in a legal opinion. Becky Burr 2: if we take this approach we need to consider how the CEP process affects/extends the filing deadline and greatly extends the timeline Becky Burr 2: please also my comments are made in my personal capacity and I am not speaking for the Board or ICANN David McAuley - We are going to have to work these issues on the list. I would ask that MH summarize this for the list so we can kick off those discussions. Kavouss Arasteh - if we propose a new approach we will have to go back to public comment - do not like the idea of doing something completely new. Action Item: MH to summarize discussions on Timing point and post to the list for further discussion. b. Parties – Joinder, etc David McAuley - (presentation of DM paper). Kavouss Arasteh - retroactive application of rules - there is no logic in this. This will bring instability to the process. David McAuley - KA this is specified in the Bylaws but I will mention your point in my summary. Action Item: DM to summarize discussions on Parties and Joinder points and post to the list for further discussion. 4. AOB (none) David McAuley - reminder to everyone to keep an eye on the list and participate. Adjourned

2 1