April 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript for Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #21 | 18 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting 21– 18 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qcHRAw 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@01D2B862.4A330890] Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Roll Call / Apologies – Welcome 2. Participation & Dashboard 3. External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office * Interviews Notes: interviews ongoing, but likely the most in-depth interviews will be the initial ones conducted, * Survey Notes: 49 surveys completed, target is ~80 responses, as this was consistent with the previous assessment. 4. Next meeting #22 24 April 2017 5. AOB none

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20170426 05:00 UTC - Reminder
by Bernard Turcotte April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

All, This is simply a reminder that the next CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary will be held Wednesday 26 April 2017 05:00UTC. All sub-groups wishing to present documents for consideration by the plenary at this meeting should forward them to the list no later than Wednesday 19 April 23:59UTC. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Rudolph Daniel April 16, 2017

April 16, 2017

Greg, Your comments and a second read, I would have to withdraw. They are indeed different things as you rightly point out. rd On Apr 16, 2017 12:41 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Rudy, That's not really what's happening here. First, the Board is proposing an assessment of the impact of the Human Rights Bylaw, not a "human rights impact assessment." Two completely different things. This could just as easily be an assessment of the impact of changing ICANN's fiscal year. So, I think you are mixing up impact assessments here. Second, there is no "principle of WSG2 HR's framework of HRIA." I'm not exactly sure what "WSG2 HR" means, but if it refers to the subgroup, the subgroup document only states "Supporting Organizations could consider defining and incorporating Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) in their respective policy development processes." That is neither a "framework of HRIA" nor is it a "principle." Even if it were, it would obviously be inappropriate and premature for the Board to "accept" anything that had only been considered at the subgroup level and did not have the approval of the full CCWG. As such there is nothing to "work across the ICANN eco stystem." To the extent the question is how could HRIAs "work across the ICANN eco system," I would say the answer is in our considerations document, which leaves the possibility of any application of HRIAs to policy development in the hands of the ICANN structures tasked with managing policy development -- the Supporting Organizations (see quote above). Presumably, the same principle of bottom-up consideration would apply to the ACs as well -- but all of this is really a question beyond the remit of the Subgroup or the CCWG. Best regards, Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stepping back, In my thinking, it is a great step forward for the icann > board to accept the principle of WSG2 HR 's framework of HRIA. so how is it > going to work across the ICANN eco system? > rd > > On Apr 13, 2017 6:57 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > >> Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning >> staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of >> the FOI - HR. >> >> >> >> Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR >> impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and >> the availability of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review >> Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal >> mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR >> Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below). >> >> >> >> One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community >> challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community >> Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section >> 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex >> D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and >> IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be >> conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on >> different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be >> involved in this analysis. >> >> >> >> So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human >> Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically >> will have adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in >> relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost >> and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”): >> >> >> >> http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940- >> 1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf >> >> >> >> [image: cid:image003.png@01D2B466.72809920] >> >> >> >> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com >> >> _____________________________ >> >> [image: cid:image002.png@01D2B46E.80B36B50] >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com >> >> >> >> *From:* McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM >> *To:* gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com >> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr(a)icann.org; >> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights >> >> >> >> [Part of string deleted to make shorter] >> >> >> >> This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice >> to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the >> “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> >> >> David McAuley >> >> International Policy Manager >> >> Verisign Inc. >> >> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154> >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> < >> ws2-hr(a)icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; >> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights >> >> >> >> I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying: >> >> >> >> The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., >> the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in >> WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and >> to further inform the development of additional implementation >> recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop >> additional implementation recommendations]*. >> >> >> >> As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking >> ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to >> understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the >> organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these >> implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., >> this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be >> implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to >> assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of >> information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the >> rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their >> deliberations of the final recommendations. >> >> >> >> In other words: >> >> >> >> - The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. >> - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation >> recommendations to accompany the FoI >> - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. >> >> >> - As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. >> >> >> - CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) >> how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is >> expected to impact. >> - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, >> >> >> - Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. >> >> >> - CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire >> ICANN community. >> >> >> - Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as >> the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into >> account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. >> >> >> - Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on >> examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the >> public comment on the initial recommendations. >> >> Does that make sense? >> >> >> >> (With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG >> Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its >> proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed >> description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of >> resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each >> Work Stream*." (emphasis added)) >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> - >> >> >> >> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> >> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this >> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or >> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended >> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by >> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-hr mailing list >> Ws2-hr(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr >> >>

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #14_ 13 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #14 – 13 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/O77RAw 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@01D2B474.EE644380] Action Items: * Avri Doria – Update the Issues document and distribute to the group for final comments by Tuesday 18 April. * Co-Rapporteurs – to write covering note for plenary regarding expectations vs Issues document for 18 April. * Avri Doria – Submit updated Issues document with covering note to be presented at next plenary for Wednesday 19 April (this is nor for a first reading). * Jordan Carter – write few pages for Roles of Board, Staff, Community for next group meeting 20 April. Notes Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 7 Participants at start of call 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check (no changes to agenda, no changes to SOIs) 2. Staff Engagement Avri Doria - had second call - agreement to give this group a presentation on the review process. also discussed how the measures document - they will have a look at. Also discussion how to bring senior staff to work with this group wrt the solution space. Patrick Dodson - preparation of the material for the review cycle is simply being cleaned up so that it makes sense for non-employees. George Sadowsky - have we progressed to actually getting to issues or just still structuring how to get to those. Avri Doria - structuring 3. Issues analysis table Avri Doria - accepted comments on document so we could work from a clean version. (going through document). Issue 1 (no comments). George Sadowsky - did we not do this last week? Avri Doria - yes it was a first reading last week but some changes were made since then. Jordan Carter - first five have not had any changes - we could skip. Alan Greenberg - there may not be an official forum - but even when claims were made they were ignored. Jordan Carter: It sounds like another "Issue" to me Klaus Stoll: Same here! Herb Waye Ombuds: New CEO seems a bit more open to things like that Alan and people can always bring things like that to me... Issue 2 (no comments) Klaus Stoll: @ Herb. But that is not a formal procedure and there is the outstanding issue of Ombuds independence. Alan Greenberg: @Herb, with a potential for him referring it to someone else who ignores it. Herb Waye Ombuds: agreed... so if ignored I would hope I would be contacted to poke the bear Alan Greenberg: @Herb, I have had discussions with your predecessor about reluctance of invoking your office. Glad to have the discussion with you as well. Jordan Carter: I think contributions to that problem would be inconsistent approach by iCANN managers in dealing with feedback Jordan Carter: and maybe an organisational culture that doesn't support addressing concerns raised by community participants Issue 3 (no comments) Issue 4 (no comments) Issue 5 (no comments) issue 6 - NEW - (no comments) Issue 7 - NEW - (no comments) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would accept it Issue 8 - New at meeting - (no comments) Avri Doria - is this ok to go to the next plenary? (no objections). DECISION Alan Greenberg - should make clear its not for a first reading but just for input to the work. Jordan Carter - Yes have to make that clear in the submission to the CCWG-Acct. Action Item - write cover note for this and transmit to CCWG-Acct. Alan Greenberg - May have a new one - uncertain if one of or systemic - staff coming back and saying we do not have resources to do that. Jordan Carter: is that a staff accountability issue? Alan Greenberg - if not what is it? Jordan Carter: it sounds like a resource / organisational capacity / prioritisation issue Jordan Carter: so it's a unilateral denial of support that is the issue? Greg Shatan - Staff Accountability applies to all staff up to the CEO - so the answer to Alan's question is true - so there is an issue here b ut its unclear. Alan Greenberg: I'm willing to drop it at the moment. Avri Doria - ok lets drop it for now - its not ready. Greg Shatan - we need to put a pin in this issue. Patrick Dodson: I think we might frame it as an issue of "appropriate methods for addressing requests that exceed bandidth, resources, budget, etc" Patrick Dodson: it is an issue of accountability to address capacity constructively. Jordan Carter: i think Patrick's is a resonable interpretaton to get the discussion moving Avri Doria - Ok so PD's wording work and we have an issue 9. 4. Document Update Jordan Carter - had promised to write up a few pages on this but have not done so yet. Greg Shatan - think this document is odd as an ICANN document. George Sadowsky - yes all delegation of authority is from the Board. Greg Shatan: Oversight and Delegation are two different things. Jordan Carter - this document is an improvement that is evolving - so a work in progress - important to keep in mind when discussing. Avri Doria - We did mention when looking for the CEO that strategy is for the Board and the community and not for the CEO. Greg Shatan: Delegation implies that the duty is that of the delegor (the Board) and is being delegated to the delegate the CEO) at the delegor's discretion. Jordan Carter: and that's how the ICANN Bylaws set the organisation up, isn't it Greg? Greg Shatan: In other words, that the CEO's job is really the Board's job, but they have delegated that job to the CEO. Greg Shatan: Jordan, not sure. George Sadowsky – Confirming that the status of document is DRAFTY. Avri Doria - no new text. this will be updated after the process review material and we have worked through the issues and have identified any remedies IF they require new procedure. 5. Next steps 6. Schedule update Avri Doria - have added weekly meeting through May to get the work done. 7. AOB (none) Adjourned Decisions: · Issues document – added new issue number 8 · Issues document should be sent to plenary for additional input (but not for a first reading) · Weekly meetings have been added through May to get the work done.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #18 | 13 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #18 – 13 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-b-RAw 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@01D2B464.E437D800] Action items: · Rafik Dammak – Send a reminder to the group to read the draft proposal and make comments. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 18 participants at start of call 1. Roll call 2. Review of action items · Staff re Interpretation – see next agenda item · GAC group on uderserved regions o Pua Hunter - There will be a pacific region workshop in Fiji at the end of April and will have a survey that is currently focused on GAC members but we hope to make it available to a wider audience. Once we have the results of the survey we will share that with this group. 3. Status of Interpretation request Rafik Damak – French and Spanish interpretation is available today. What about captioning? Bernard Turcotte – captioning is not yet available but should be soon. 4. Progress of draft report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l2cGcx8nNvYSg_ZMUVnoC2t0VKb4ATQVTXxcxYI… Dalila Rahmoumi - diversity must something that does more than simply collect data - it must put forward proposals for increasing diversity. Report also notes that it will only be done if the funds should be there - we should not get into administrative issues - we need to focus on the 3 main points - collect, strategies Julie Hammer - my personal view is we should focus more on the functions required vs actually proposing an actual structure. The organization should be the one to decide how to implement. Uncertain I support proposing an office of diversity. Rafik Dmak - functions first is good. Do we need to set actual numerical goals vs just being aspirational? Just ideas at this point Dalila Rahmoumi - Agree what is important is the functions but an Office is for providing a focal point that is cross community unit. Rafik Damak - What is important at this point is to be clear as to WHAT we want and WHY we want it. Going into implementation we should remain high level. Let’s see if we can find a middle way on this. Advise everyone to review the document and comment. Drafting team will focus on the recommendations and continue its work. We will need to have a work plan if we want to deliver a report for June. Rafik Damak – I will send a reminder to everyone to read the document and compile an issue list. Will resume the work of the drafting team. 5- AOB (None) Adjourned Decisions: · Group has to focus first on what it wants and why it wants it. · Drafting team to resume work focusing on recommendations

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Niels ten Oever April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, A board member confirmed to me that the Considerations document was not considered when this letter was composed and that the Public Comment period is probably the best moment for the board to give input this. I would propose that the CCWG co-chairs and I will respond with a letter to the board that it seems we have addressed most issues with the FoI and Considerations document and that we would like to invite the board to continue to provide input via discussions in the plenary, the subgroup and during the upcoming public comments period for this document. Best, Niels On 04/13/2017 12:06 AM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Definitely this letter is not for this group. > > Like Niels noted, we may wait until the public comment to get more > information from the Board on this and remain focused on the current > assignment. > > Regards > Remmy > > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [/Multiple-award winning medium/] > (DigitalSENSE Business News > <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS > <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>) > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms > <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎> > PC Summit 2017 <http://www.pcsummit.com.ng>, December 7-8 @Federal > Palace, Victoria Island, Lagos. > > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS > <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>) > _________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It > is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does > not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you > are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then > delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document > to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court > persecution. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Niels ten Oever > <lists(a)nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am forwarding you a letter that I and the CCWG co-chairs received from > the board, please find it attached. > > It seems like this letter was composed before the Considerations > document was finalized, therefore I think it would be apt that we > continue with our readings and ask the board to provide us with their > analysis during the Public Comments period. > > All the best, > > Niels > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> > > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 3

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #16 | 12 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #16 – 12 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0rbRAw 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@01D2B44A.E0794830] Action Items: · Greg Shatan – Provide next update on this at the 21 June plenary. · Staff - prepare draft to submit comment to FY18 OP&B and notice to chartering organizations. Notes Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 34 participants at start of call 19:01 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda Leon Sanchez - no changes 3. Administration Leon Sanchez - (review of AI's) Bernard Turcotte - SOAC public consultation should be up later this week. 4. Legal Committee Update Leon Sanchez - would ask SE to walk us through this quickly. Samantha Eisner - (walk through response document). Lori Schulman: Well done Samantha. Concise answers to difficult questions. Kavouss Arasteh - this reply will also help add to the Jurisdiction questionnaire - but this has to be continued in the Jurisdiction sub-group. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups HR first Reading Niels ten Oever - (presentation of document for first reading). Accidentally dropped one of the footnotes - now fixed in the Google doc. Niels ten Oever: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17AvMLBfT8BmC3gUOTvaIuTuEqMbgiporUwqNymv… Kavouss Arasteh - as is the normal procedure all those from the HR sub-group should accept this is the consensus of that group and should not object at this point during this presentation. David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Niels, agree with your take on the footnote Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Great job Niels and the group... Kavouss Arasteh - this should be the second reading. Leon Sanchez - No this is a first reading as per our procedures. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thank you Niels. QUESTION: Are we going to discuss the letter from the Board re "impact of the FOI"? QUESTION Leon Sanchez - Re the letter from the Board - Board is advising that staff to conduct an HRIA and will be providing input in the public consultation on this. Any questions (none). Congratulations to the HR subgroup. Decision – Second half of the Human Rights document passes first reading. Update on IRP-IOT David McAuley - Brief update on IOT PC and then go on to EOI for panelist. Trying to stress using the list more than meetings. David McAuley (RySG): Bylaw 4.3(j)(i) provides for an IRP standing panel of at least 7 members and then Bylaw 4.3(j)(ii)(B) goes on to provide: “ICANN shall issue a call for expressions of interest from potential panelists, and work with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and the Board to identify and solicit applications from well-qualified candidates, and to conduct an initial review and vetting of applications.” Brenda Brewer: IRP-IOT wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/TheOAw David McAuley (RySG): Qualifications for panelists are listed in Bylaw 4.3(j)(i) and 4.3(q) David McAuley (RySG): Sam Eisner sent ICANN’s draft EOI to the IOT for its views (which we are working on). Sam’s mail is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-March/000174.html David McAuley (RySG): My comments as an IOT participant on the draft EOI are here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-April/000185.html Mathieu Weill - good presentation thank you DM. Recommend that everyone focus on spreading the EOI as wide as possible. Alan Greenberg - As a chair of an AC who will have to work in this process but it seems to be a complete process vacuum. Are each SOAC picking one or is it a community process? David McAuley - EOI is not public yet it is being finalized (4 to 6 weeks). As to AG comments he is correct - Bylaws are overly perfunctory in this area. I have presented this to SOACs and the IOT agrees with me that the IOT take on an advisory role and will advise SOACs as to the steps they should be taking. Kavouss Arasteh - What happens if the Board rejects a majority of candidates? Situation of SOACs to select these panelists is rather thin in process in procedures - we need high level guidelines for the SOAC. Lastly what do we mean by dissemination - what do we mean by this? Do not agree with DM regarding DEMONSTRATING qualifications which he does not want to require. David McAuley - re not board not confirming - Bylaws say NOT UNREASONBLY. WRT guiding principles - the Bylaws are the Bylaws - the SO and ACs will have to agree out how they will be agreeing to select members. Dissemination is unlimited - law schools, bar associations etc. Samantha Eisner - re AG question - selection of candidates for panel - and yes there is no process - wondering what staff could do to help with this. We still have several months prior to us providing SOACs with lists of candidates - and let us remember this will be a recurring process so we need to document the process for the future. So staff is waiting to help as requested. Mathieu Weill - yes we need concrete process proposals to kick start this and the IOT is well positioned to help in this and would hope that the IOT would launch this discussion with some draft proposals. Alan Greenberg - we need to involve SOACs with this ASAP. We are trying to organize ourselves for the EC but this is wider - but each SOAC has to decide this. These things take a while to get done. David McAuley (RySG): Good suggestion Alan Decision – Have IOT work with staff to help prepare SOACs for the task of selecting IRP panel members. This should include ensuring the chairs of all the SOACs discuss this requirement ASAP. Update on Jurisdiction sub-group Greg Shatan - (presentation of document) Mathieu Weill - GS thank for this. Any questions? Kavouss Arasteh - do not see this approach being very productive - is there any hope of any results in the short term? I see little hope - all groups will finish except this one. Do not want to reach a point of consensus by exhaustion. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Thanks, Greg. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): REsponses to the questionnaire will be very helpful. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed if that is not progress not sure what else to call it Mathieu Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg, the scope issue is essential to resolve David McAuley (RySG): +1 @CLO matthew shears: thanks Greg and agree Mathieu Weill - We should not underestimate the milestones reached by the group such as the response by ICANN legal and the responses to the questionnaire and we need to look at these before being pessimistic on the possible results. We need to use the issue driven approach which could generate useful outcomes. Would request a further update in a few months to see where we are. We all need to make a commitment to close this topic before the IGF discussions close. Action Item – Greg Shatan – Provide next update on this at the 21 June plenary. 6. WS2 Extension for FY18 (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018) Bernie walks thru presentation of FY18 Estimates. Initial budget for entire project was $8.8M. FY17 current forecast is $5.3M. FY18 estimates is $3.4M, ie should break even. These are rough estimates at this time, given the time we had to produce these. David McAuley - what falls under Prof Svces other than Legal? Bernie - These are Comms costs to support final report ACTION (Staff): prepare draft to submit comment to FY18 OP&B and notice to chartering organizations. Mathieu Weill – Would like to thank all departments which worked to make possible on behalf of the entire CCWG-Accoutanbility. Kavouss Arastreh - Is this information available? Mathieu Weil - Yes, the presentation was distributed through the mailing list. Brenda Brewer: This document will also be posted on the CCWG ACCT Meeting Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/0rbRAw 7. Next Plenary - Wednesday 26 April 0500UTC 8. AOB (none) 9. Adjournment Decisions: · Second half of the Human Rights document passes first reading. · Have IOT work with staff to help prepare SOACs for the task of selecting IRP panel members. This should include ensuring the chairs of all the SOACs discuss this requirement ASAP.

1 0

Proposed FoI-HR and Considerations for CCWG (including footnote 4)
by Niels ten Oever April 12, 2017

April 12, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached the 'Proposed FoI-HR and Considerations for CCWG' document, now with added footnote 4. Again, I am very sorry for omitting that footnote in the earlier version. Thank you all very much for the successful first reading. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-Meeting-20170412 Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte April 12, 2017

April 12, 2017

All, The next meeting of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 will be on Wednesday 12 April 2017 1900UTC. The Adobe link is *https://participate.icann.org/accountability <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate.icann.org%2Faccounta…>* The proposed agenda is: 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration Review of Action Items from previous meeting: • 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. (completed) • Staff to publish SOAC Accountability Draft Recommendation for public consultation summarizing the issues around removing Mutual from MAR in the Announcement. (ongoing) • Diversity sub-group to decide how to proceed with the survey. (completed) • Greg Shatan to prepare an update for the next plenary on the Jurisdiction sub-group process, current work approach and progress. (this meeting) 4. Legal Committee Update Status of request from the Jurisdiction sub-group 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups - First Reading of the Human Rights "Considerations" (please note that the first part of the document is the HR Framework of Interpretation which was approved by the plenary previously. The new section "Considerations" begins on page 5 of the document and is what is being considered for a first reading). - Update on the Jurisdiction sub-group process, current work approach and progress - Presentation on the status of the IOT focusing on the draft Expression of Interest for IRP Panel Members 6. WS2 Extension for FY18 (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018) 7 . Next Plenary - Wednesday 26 April 0500UTC 8. AOB 9. Adjournment

2 1

Discussion Draft of Jurisdiction Subgroup Revised Work Plan and Schedule
by Greg Shatan April 12, 2017

April 12, 2017

CCWG Plenary, I have attached a "discussion draft" of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's Revised Work Plan and Schedule. While this was first reviewed at the Subgroup's meeting earlier today, it was based on earlier discussions in the Subgroup. Greg Shatan Rapporteur

1 0