- Accountability-Cross-Community

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

RES: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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<mailto:mssi-secretariat@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<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>> 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:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by MSSI Secretariat June 15, 2017

June 15, 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 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)

3 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

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> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction(a)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 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)

2 1

Caption notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #25 | 15 June 2017
by MSSI Secretariat June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Hello all, The raw caption notes, recordings (in English, French & Spanish) and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #25 – 15 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GiHwAw. A copy of the notes are attached to this email and also may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D2E5DB.0670F3F0] ________________________________ 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/66068762/6-15-17%20ICANNdi…> · PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068762/6-15-17%20ICANNdi…> Documents * Consolidated Comments_ Diversity Questionnaire<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068762/Consolidated%20Co…>

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Approval Process for WS2 Recommendations - Approved
by Bernard Turcotte June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

All, As per our email of of 2 June we have received no objections to completing the second reading of the Approval Process for WS2 Recommendations online. Therefore the Approval Process for WS2 Recommendations has now been approved. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Letters-Mathieu Weill_Thank You
by Bernard Turcotte June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

All, As requested at our last plenary we have sent the attached letter to thank Mathieu Weill for his service to the CCWG-Accountability. The letter was presented to him at a dinner in his honour in Paris last week. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2.

1 0