June 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

WS2 June dashboard
by Nathalie Vergnolle June 23, 2017

June 23, 2017

Dear all, The June update of WS-2 Dashboard is now available (see attached), and has been posted to the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+Dashboard> here. This version includes data statistics up to 23 June 17. A revised version will be posted early July with full month data. Thank you, Nathalie. Nathalie Vergnolle Sr. Project Manager, Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives ICANN nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org <mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org> Telephone Direct: +1(310) 578-8957 Cell: +1(310) 871-8561 Skype: Nathalie.vergnolle.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59-Agenda and documents - Additional Documents 2
by Bernard Turcotte June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

All, Last document Ombudsman external evaluation report - attached. We have not received the Diversity report for the first reading and will be re-arranging the agenda accordingly. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All attached to this email please find: > > > - Staff Accountability report for first reading. > - Ombudsman Presentation. > - Two additional documents for the Transparency discussion - and > updated version of the report as well as the transcript of the 20 June > meeting which discusses the issues which will be brought up at the face to > face meeting. > > We expect to be forwarding the last remaining document tomorrow. > > Bernard Turcotte > ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Bernard Turcotte < > turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> Please find below the agenda and documents for the face to face meeting >> of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 to be held Sunday 25 June 2017 in >> Johannesburg South Africa. >> >> *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 >> <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 >> >> · Budget document attached. >> >> 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update >> >> · Presentation attached >> >> 09:30 – 10:15 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation >> >> · Presentation attached. >> >> 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break >> >> 10:30 – 11:15 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and >> recommendations >> >> · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. >> >> 11:15 – 12:00 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation >> >> · Summary of comments attached. >> >> 12:00 – 12:30 – CEP – Update >> >> · Discussion document attached. >> >> 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch >> >> 13:30 – 14:30 – Diversity – First reading of recommendations >> >> · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. >> >> 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations >> >> · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. >> >> 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break >> >> 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction – Status >> >> >> · Conclusion by Co-Chairs >> >> · Transcript of June 14 Jurisdiction call. >> >> 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up >> >> >> Adjournment. >> > >

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59-Agenda and documents - Additional Documents
by Bernard Turcotte June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

All attached to this email please find: - Staff Accountability report for first reading. - Ombudsman Presentation. - Two additional documents for the Transparency discussion - and updated version of the report as well as the transcript of the 20 June meeting which discusses the issues which will be brought up at the face to face meeting. We expect to be forwarding the last remaining document tomorrow. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > Please find below the agenda and documents for the face to face meeting of > the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 to be held Sunday 25 June 2017 in Johannesburg > South Africa. > > *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 > <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 > > · Budget document attached. > > 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update > > · Presentation attached > > 09:30 – 10:15 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation > > · Presentation attached. > > 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break > > 10:30 – 11:15 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and > recommendations > > · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. > > 11:15 – 12:00 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation > > · Summary of comments attached. > > 12:00 – 12:30 – CEP – Update > > · Discussion document attached. > > 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch > > 13:30 – 14:30 – Diversity – First reading of recommendations > > · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. > > 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations > > · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. > > 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break > > 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction – Status > > > · Conclusion by Co-Chairs > > · Transcript of June 14 Jurisdiction call. > > 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up > > > Adjournment. >

1 0

Caption notes, recordings and transcript for Reviewing the Transparency Subgroup Meeting #10 – 20 June
by Brenda Brewer June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Hello all, The raw caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #10 – 20 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MgfwAw A copy of the raw caption notes and action items 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@01D2E9C7.7BA26650] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Action Items: * MK – reach out to Barbara Wanner wrt to the possibility of co-rapporteur. * Staff – Follow up with ICANN Legal vs input from meeting. Raw Captioning Notes (Please note: These are the unofficial transcripts. Official transcripts will be posted 2-3 days after the call) * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66062130/Transparency_0620…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66062130/Transparency_0620…> Decisions: * If Chris Wilson cannot be replaced MK will complete the work. First will see in Barbara Wanner is available to co-rapporteur. * Focus of the face to face presentation will be on recommendations Requests: * (none) Documents: * Next Version of recommendation document: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Transparency?preview=/59643288/660…

1 0

Submission of Report from Staff Accountability for first reading in Johannesburg.
by avri doria June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Hi, The Staff Accountability Sub Group has reached consensus on submitting the enclosed Report for a first reading at ICANN59. There are no minority reports at this time. Included with the report is a Supplement *which includes a record of the work done by the WS2 Sub Group on Staff Accountability. This supplement can be used to further understand what went into the definition of issues and recommendations. No consensus determination was made regarding the supplement*.**** ** ** Thanks Avri Doria Rapporteur for the Sub Group --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN59-Agenda and documents
by Bernard Turcotte June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

All, Please find below the agenda and documents for the face to face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 to be held Sunday 25 June 2017 in Johannesburg South Africa. *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 <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 · Budget document attached. 09:15 – 09:30 – IRP – IOT Status and Update · Presentation attached 09:30 – 10:15 – SO/AC Accountability update on public consultation · Presentation attached. 10:15 – 10:30 – Coffee break 10:30 – 11:15 – Ombudsman – Presentation of external review and recommendations · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. 11:15 – 12:00 – Transparency – Status on update on public consultation · Summary of comments attached. 12:00 – 12:30 – CEP – Update · Discussion document attached. 12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch 13:30 – 14:30 – Diversity – First reading of recommendations · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. 14:30 – 15:30 – Staff Accountability – First reading of recommendations · Document will be distributed Wednesday 21 June. 15:30 – 15:45 – Coffee Break 15:45 – 17:15 – Jurisdiction – Status · Conclusion by Co-Chairs · Transcript of June 14 Jurisdiction call. 17:15 – 17:30 – Wrap-up Adjournment.

2 1

CEP discussion paper
by Edward Morris June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Hello everybody, In anticipation of the upcoming CCWG F2F in Johannesburg, attached please find a discussion paper from the Reviewing the Cooperative Engagement Process subgroup. We trust this document will be useful in updating the plenary on our work and helping to allow for robust and informed discussion in South Africa. Safe travel to all of those journeying to ICANN 59, and we look forward to interacting with everyone, online and offline, as we work together to successfully complete this historic project. Kind Regards, Edward Morris

2 1

Request for Clarification (Was Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)
by Seun Ojedeji June 18, 2017

June 18, 2017

Dear Co-Chairs, I was not in attendance at the last plenary in May (and perhaps a couple of previous ones) but do follow the list and have just also checked the list archive but can't seem to find any thread relating to consensus building of the CCWG which then resulted to the decision of the Co-Chairs that was presented at the jurisdiction subgroup's last meeting. May I request clarification on how you arrived at that decision? Ofcourse I certainly may have missed something. Regards On 16 Jun 2017 7:33 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seun, Thanks for your comments. With regard to your concerns about the co-chairs (all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs. It sounds like some things need to be clarified. The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be weighed by the Plenary. While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary. Finally , not to speak for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support, checking numbers is relevant. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Greg, > > Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation: > > 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and > not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe > discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that. > > 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully > by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited > to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the > significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated > opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this > case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand. > > 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs > of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter > sounds like a procedural flaw to me. > > The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG > since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same > comment to subgroup leads as well. > > Regards > PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and > NOT as any other hat that I may wear. > > On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seun, >> >> Thank you for asking. Let me clarify for you and others where we are >> procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be >> determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the >> co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of >> deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of >> consensus on recommendations which included these elements. The decision >> presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk >> of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be >> viewed as a Subgroup action per se. As of the end of the call, the >> discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision >> changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG. >> >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Greg, >>> >>> In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the >>> following: >>> >>> "Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have >>> concluded that......." >>> >>> Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by >>> the CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making >>> decisions on things here. >>> >>> If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then >>> decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should >>> be better determined by the CCWG plenary. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jurisdiction Subgroup Members, >>>> >>>> As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the >>>> Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in >>>> the email below). For convenience, here it is again: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one >>>> who left before the end, but had made his position clear. >>>> >>>> This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG >>>> procedures. >>>> >>>> With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus >>>> on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues >>>> within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for >>>> resolving those issues. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> >>>> Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM >>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for >>>> Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 >>>> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >>>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability >>>> WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available >>>> here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A copy of the action items and raw caption 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 (ICANN) >>>> >>>> Skype: brenda.brewer.icann >>>> >>>> Phone: 1-310-745-1107 <(310)%20745-1107> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Raw Captioning Notes* >>>> >>>> *Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official >>>> transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call* >>>> >>>> - Word Doc >>>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614I…> >>>> - PDF >>>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Decisions:* >>>> >>>> - Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have >>>> concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian >>>> 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 Californian law and place of >>>> incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Action Items:* >>>> >>>> - (none) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Requests:* >>>> >>>> - (none) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>> >>>> >>

5 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Documents for upcoming meeting
by parminder June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

It gives me no pleasure to report that a coup from the top was achieved at yesterday's call based meeting of the jurisdiction sub-group. The CCWG and sub group chairs together simply decided that the CCWG jurisdiction sub-group will no longer discuss the jurisdiction question, however paradoxical and comical it sounds. What they actually proclaimed was of course more circuitously worded -- something like, people can discuss the jurisdiction question as long as it is not, even by any distant implication, about any change in the jurisdictional status quo!! Wonder, what really then is the jurisdiction issue that they can discuss, but then Orwell did tell us a lot about such political speak. One is also reminded of the consumer's unlimited right to buy black Ford cars. regretfully, parminder On Wednesday 14 June 2017 11:50 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: > All, > > In addition to the agenda, the summaries we will discuss are attached. > > Also attached is the chart containing the "raw" statements made during > the prior call (plus the changes suggested by Thiago on the list), as > well as a distillation of those statements (since a number were > essentially repetitive or overlapping). > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

8 12

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

Dear Greg Thank you for your views. I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group. As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support". Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list. If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made. In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed. I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption 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 (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107> Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614I…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian 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 Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 3