June 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

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 post ICANN59
by Bernard Turcotte June 29, 2017

June 29, 2017

All, Well ICANN 59 is now over. Please note that the Adobe recordings of the WS2 face to face meeting have been posted in the usual places but there is a technical problem which prevents users from accessing these, It was a little difficult to confirm the problem as ICANN staff have access - but the problem is now confirmed and a request has been made to IT services to fix this. Please note that the MP3 audio only recording are available and accessible by all. Also rapporteurs have been booking time slots for sub-group meetings starting the week of 10 July - please find the current version of the July schedule below - calendar invitations will be sent in the next few days. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Date Day of week 05:00 UTC 13:00 UTC 19:00 UTC July 2017 1 Saturday 2 Sunday 3 Monday 4 Tuesday US Holiday 4th of July 5 Wednesday 6 Thursday 7 Friday 8 Saturday 9 Sunday 10 Monday Jurisdiction - BT 11 Tuesday IRP-IOT BT 12 Wednesday CEP - BT 13 Thursday SOAC Acct - BT 14 Friday 15 Saturday 16 Sunday 17 Monday 18 Tuesday Jurisdiction - BT HUMAN RIGHTS 19 Wednesday CEP - BT 20 Thursday SOAC Acct - BT IRP-IOT BT 21 Friday 22 Saturday 23 Sunday 24 Monday 25 Tuesday HUMAN RIGHTS 26 Wednesday Jurisdiction - BT 27 Thursday SOAC Acct - BT IRP-IOT BT 28 Friday 29 Saturday 30 Sunday 31 Monday

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWAccountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59-PostMeetringCoChairStatement
by Bernard Turcotte June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

All, Co-Chair statement following the 25 June Face to Face meeting attached. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

2 2

On IRP subgroup summary being presented at Johannesburg
by Sivasubramanian M June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Hello Unless there are unspoken and unseen merits, I have some concerns on some aspects of the summary: 1. The idea of constraining ICANN to its bylaws figures very prominently in the summary, defined as one of the pillars, not really a supportive pillar, but sort of a not so well thought of negative command, " Don't allow ICANN to exceed its mission" 2. The standing panel is to be trained by ICANN on DNS technical matters. *For argument, wearing a skeptical hat across the table,* who in ICANN would train the standing panel? Staff? Board? Community? Which part of the Community? Would it stop with training the panel on DNS? Or, extend to impart notions on what would constitute an acceptable ruling and what would not? How independent would the IRP be , if the training is provided by ICANN and support is provided by ICANN? -- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

5 9

Open Contracting - transparency subgroup
by Niels ten Oever June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Having had the time to learn more about the principles and concepts of Open Contracting [0], I see no reason why ICANN should not sign up to this concept, unless there are very good reasons not to. And up to now I have not heard any. By default I think we should adhere to the highest principles possible, within ICANNs scope and mission of course, and not seek to reinvent the wheel. All the best, Niels [0] https://www.open-contracting.org/get-started/global-principles/ -- 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

Running early
by Jordan Carter June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Hi all It is likely that the Staff Accountability item will finish before its scheduled time. We will move directly on to the Jurisdiction item when it is complete. The remote participation room is: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom1 All best Jordan -- 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 *For a better world through a better Internet*

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
by parminder June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

All Since I will not be able to attend today f2f meeting I wanted to share some points. The main issue for the meeting, in my understanding, is to deal with the sudden decision of the CWCG chair about what the sub group should and should not do. It is clear that this decision has been found faulty and criticised by majority of participants in the e-discussions here, even those who otherwise may agree with not pursuing the course that the Chair unilaterally forbid us from taking. The decision is simply procedurally wrong, and must be dumped... Among other things, it begun with the "out of scope" discussion and suddenly became "unlikely to find consensus" decision -- which are two very different things. Almost everything is wrong with the manner in which the decision was imposed on the group. It is evident that there was a premeditated attempt - I dont know among or at the behest of whom - to simply gag the jurisdiction discussion, which happens to be one of the most important topics since the start of the transition process, and even much before.. It appears that it was triggered from some nervousness arising out of the responses to the questionnaire that was sent to the public, where many response spoke of need for clear institutional changes to the jurisdictional status quo. The conspiratorial basis of this decision is also highlighted by how in a single sweep not only the discussions on possible changes to the ICANN incorporation but the much more "easier to deal with" subject of tailored immunities for ICANN was banned to be discussed any further. There has been simply no grounds for this....In any case, it was the sub group chair's decision that we will come to "remedies" or institutional changes only after having listed out "issues" that need to be addressed. The sudden parachuting in of the CCWG chair's decision therefore looks even more problematic, and smells of something quite not right going on behind the curtains. Neither there was enough ground-work done towards reaching this decision that goes to the very heart of the sub group's work. If there is any claims of due process in ICANN, we need to simply strike down the decision, and start anew with whatever concerns there may be that precipitated this crisis. The Chair must explain why he made this problematic intervention, and whether sub group chair had submitted a report that the sub group's work is not able to be pursued. Strangely, the sub group chair has been presenting this as entirely the CCWG chair's decision. What did CCWG learn, from where, and what was his chain of reasoning to make this decision? Did he hold any closed group or individual consultations? We must be told what really happened. Subsequent to the strong reactions to the decision, CCWG chair must withdraw it, or the CCWG assembly should force it to be withdrawn. It is wrong in process, and it cannot now be attempted to be corrected post-facto by admitting some substantive changes. The process itself is sacrosanct, and must be upheld, independent of the nature of substantive views in the group. I suspect that the decision will be attempted to made palatable by making marginal concessions on it, but that I insist is not the point. Upholding due process, and resisting abuse of process and power must be our first and main priority today. parminder On Tuesday 20 June 2017 12:46 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Sorry if I missed the boat, Greg, but I did review the emails on the > list fairly extensively before commenting, and it sure looked like we > were having a scope debate rather than a substantive debate. It is > possible that the initial framing as a scope debate triggered a lot of > responses and emotions that the overall dialogue never got beyond. > > > > One of the problems with framing it as scope is that it lets those who > want to argue for a change in the jurisdiction/place of incorporation > off the hook. They can make perfectly reasonable and convincing > arguments that it is not out of scope, even if they are unable to > demonstrate a clearly superior alternative to California law that is > compatible with the WS1 accountability mechanisms. > > > > Let’s get out of that rut. > > > > I think the subgroup has done more extensive quality work than people > who are watching it day to day realize. > > > > · We have clarified the set of problems we face with the layer > model; > > · We have reviewed most of the relevant court cases (still > ongoing); > > · We have identified specific problems with U.S. jurisdiction > (OFAC and similar US-imposed sanctions); > > · We have discussed the US Immunities Act, and with one or two > exceptions agreed that it would not be a good path to take > > · We have discovered that those who most want to move it out > of California cannot name or identify a specific, superior > location/jurisdiction, but must instead appeal to “international > jurisdiction,” which means a new international treaty and new > organizational arrangement that would require re-doing the entire > transition process. > > > > Let’s reach consensus on two simple points: > > 1. There ARE problems of accountability caused by U.S. > jurisdiction, notably around OFAC sanctions > > 2. There is no reasonable prospect of improvement to come from > uprooting ICANN, completely changing its legal status and moving to an > unknown and as yet undeveloped alternative > > > > *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 19, 2017 12:44 PM > *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L > <milton(a)gatech.edu>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented > > > > Milton, > > > > I actually agree with you, up to a point. The slide you refer to was > a strawman and a jumping-off point for discussion. By the second > call, last week, we had moved away from that slide and from discussing > the issue in terms of scope. The CCWG Co-Chairs instead framed the > issue around the question "what will get sufficient traction in the > group" vs. subjects that will not get sufficient traction, and thus > would not lead to a consensus recommendation. > > > > However, I don't think this was an instance of anyone preempting a > discussion, much less dishonestly. As noted, no issues have been > foreclosed by the Co-Chair's decision, which is aligned with your > point #2 -- the "lack of traction" for recommending changes to ICANN's > corporate status. I hope that everyone is interested in substantive > debate, and I hope to see plenty of it in this group in the coming weeks. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: > > +1 > > > > Best regards, > > > > John Laprise, Ph.D. > > Principal Consultant > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ > > > > > > > > *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of > *Mueller, Milton L > *Sent:* Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM > *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction > <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented > > > > Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this > question: > > > > *Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's > status as a not-for-profit California corporation within the scope > of the Subgroup?* > > > > Two things seem obvious to me: > > 1. The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and > > 1. There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes > to ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit > corporation. > > > > It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with > issue #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real > alternative, much less a clearly superior one, to California > jurisdiction. The identified problems with US jurisdiction (mainly > OFAC) can be addressed without moving ICANN’s place of > incorporation. So let’s stop trying to dishonestly pre-empt > resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling certain discussions > “out of scope.” Let’s resolve it honestly by developing and > acknowledging consensus around the fact that other than the > meaningless mirage of “international jurisdiction” there is no > better framework within which to work than California law. > > > > The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the > substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the > subgroup would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with > scope debate. > > > > I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me > can take this perspective into the f2f meeting. > > > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > > > > > > > > *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM > *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented > > > > Please see attached. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity
by parminder June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

On Friday 23 June 2017 02:58 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote: > Dear all, > As previously mentioned, we will address the issue of the procedural decision the co-chairs took during our meeting at ICANN59 in detail. > > However, given the ongoing debate on the list, let me please offer a clarification on one aspect of what I said and, more importantly, what was not said. > > The co-chairs established that > > 1. Relocalization of ICANN to another jurisdiction and > 2. Making ICANN an immune organization > > were suggestions that did not get sufficient traction to be further pursued. > > I did not speak to the question of partial immunity. Thomas, Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to highlight relevant parts. We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters*or seek immunity for ICANN*. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for*an immunity based concept* or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. (quote ends) You clearly removed discussions and possible recommendations on "an immunity based concept", which evidently includes everything related to possible immunities, that phrase seems specifically tailored to cover anything that included the concept of immunity - partial immunity, tailored immunity, whatever. Expecting that you made this sweeping decision after having closely observed the concerned discussions on the list, or being duly reported about them, I cannot see how you could have missed the fact that much of the immunity discussions involved partial or tailored immunity. In the circumstances, I see this post facto amendment to the decision, after facing strong criticism about the process adopted by you to arrive at it, as an attempt to some make adjustments to its substance to cover up what are strong procedural faults with the decision. The process you adopted was wrong, and the decision should be withdrawn in all aspects for that reason alone. regards, parminder > > Please note that this clarification is in no way intended to be understood as an endorsement of the concept of partial or relative immunity, but I thought it was necessary to go on the record on this aspect. > > Thanks and kind regards, > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >

3 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWAccountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59 Revised Agenda 2
by Bernard Turcotte June 24, 2017

June 24, 2017

All due to a conflict for SOAC rapporteurs we have now switched their presentation with the Ombudsman - updated version below: CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Face to Face Meeting in Johannesburg South Africa, 25 June 08:30 Local (06:30UTC) Ball Room 1. Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom1 08:00 – 08:30 - Coffee 08:30 – 09:00 – Welcome, review of agenda, Administration 0900 – 09:15 – WS2 Extension – Status and Budget 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update 09:30 – 10:15 – CEP - Update 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break 10:30 – 11:30 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation 11:30 – 12:30 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch 13:30 – 14:30 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and recommendations 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction - Status 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > > I have tried to minimize the changes to the agenda to deal with the fact > we will not have a Diversity segment. As such CEP is now moved up to the > SOAC Acct slot, Ombudsman and Transparency are now both one hour and SOAC > Acct now replaces the Diversity presentation after lunch for 1 hour. > > > 08:00 – 08:30 - Coffee > > 08:30 – 09:00 – Welcome, review of agenda, Administration > > 0900 – 09:15 – WS2 Extension – Status and Budget > > 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update > > 09:30 – 10:15 – CEP - Update > > 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break > > 10:30 – 11:30 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and > recommendations > > 11:30 – 12:30 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation > > 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch > > 13:30 – 14:30 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation > > 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations > > 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break > > 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction - Status > > 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up >

1 0

CCWAccountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59 Revised Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte June 24, 2017

June 24, 2017

All, I have tried to minimize the changes to the agenda to deal with the fact we will not have a Diversity segment. As such CEP is now moved up to the SOAC Acct slot, Ombudsman and Transparency are now both one hour and SOAC Acct now replaces the Diversity presentation after lunch for 1 hour. 08:00 – 08:30 - Coffee 08:30 – 09:00 – Welcome, review of agenda, Administration 0900 – 09:15 – WS2 Extension – Status and Budget 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update 09:30 – 10:15 – CEP - Update 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break 10:30 – 11:30 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and recommendations 11:30 – 12:30 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch 13:30 – 14:30 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction - Status 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up

1 0