- Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG-Accountability -WS2 Calendar for March 2017
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 2017

All, Given this is the last day of February here is the current status of the March CCWG-Accountability -WS2 Calendar. This is a CURRENT status and we would encourage you to check the master calendar located at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Day of week 05:00 UTC 13:00 UTC 19:00 UTC Notes 1 Wednesday Jurisdiction Guidelines for G.Faith 2 Thursday SOAC Acct IRP-IOT HOLD Staff Acct 3 Friday Documents due for March 10 Plenary 4 Saturday 5 Sunday 6 Monday Obudsman (BT) PCST report publication 7 Tuesday 8 Wednesday Travel day 9 Thursday Travel day Dashboard publication 10 Friday CCWG-Accountability Face to Face Plenary 11 Saturday ICANN58 - Copenhagen 12 Sunday ICANN58 - Copenhagen Note: Time change in North American +1 hour 13 Monday ICANN58 - Copenhagen 14 Tuesday ICANN58 - Copenhagen 15 Wednesday ICANN58 - Copenhagen 16 Thursday ICANN58 - Copenhagen 17 Friday Travel day 18 Saturday Travel day 19 Sunday End of Travel Funding Application for ICANN 59 20 Monday Obudsman (BT) 21 Tuesday 22 Wednesday Guidelines for G. Faith BT - co-chair/staff meeting 1500 - Documents due for March 29 Plenary 23 Thursday SOAC Acct IOT 24 Friday 25 Saturday 26 Sunday 27 Monday Obudsman (BT) 28 Tuesday Travel funding confirmations due to ICANN travel 29 Wednesday Plenary Guidelines for G. Faith Report on IOT Public Consultation due. 30 Thursday Staff Acct SOAC Acct IOT Dashboard inputs from rapporteurs due 31 Friday

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #10_ 28 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #10 – 28 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y6bRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ Notes Staff Accountability Meeting #10 28 February 2017 @ 05:00 UTC Agenda: 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check 2. Second reading document A version 1.5. Jordan is rapporteur on this document If there is time after completing Document A for submission to Plenary (note the documents are open for comment and suggested edits. Contributions to content invited): 3. Discussion / seeking feedback on Draft Document B v1.2 Avri is rapporteur on this document 4. Continuing Discussion of Responses to Staff questions (if time) 5. Schedule check 6. AOB Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 7 Participants at start of call Avri Doria - Usual administrivia - Pam Little - updated SOI, now representing Alibaba. Jordan Carter - (review of structure of document). Any comments? George Sadowsky - Difficult comments to make given my liaison status - My sense is of real concern because the document to my mind misses the mark completely. What problems are trying to be solved here - seems most clear. Limited Board feedback is there is no understanding what is going. You could cut out 80% of the document without losing much - the two main recommendations are F and J which seems to make sense. the document provides a lot of background, too much in many cases and some incorrect. Does this document really address the problem (statement from Rec. 12). Greg Shatan: I have the same general concerns as George has expressed. Jordan Carter - Agree just focusing on the problem would be better but this is not the requirement from Rec. 12. Greg Shatan - Do not think the suggestions made by GS are incoherent with Rec. 12. there may not be a need for a "history of the world" approach. Do not think this document is what was required by WS1. Jordan Carter - The italicized text is copy/paste from rec. 12 which says we should develop this in cooperation with staff - however there does not seem to be an operational model, given our attempts, that would allow us to do this. In part this is why I think this should go to the Plenary so we can get an understanding of what we should be doing. Avri Doria - Agree with JC comments and should be repeated to the plenary so we can find out if we are meeting the requirements of rec. 12. There does seem to be an (elephant) in the room but it is uncertain. avri doria: i actually did not say an elephant in the room. i said something large covered in a blanket walking through the room, but we don't know exactly what it is. Might be a rhinocerous for all I know. George Sadowsky - The elephant in the room seems to be people think that staff are crossing over the line to policy implementation and there is no place where the community can get that addressed. Jordan Carter - what I thought is that staff would provide a paper in June that would provide the information that was requested - but that was not the case. As a group of volunteers getting replies every two months does not seem to be very functional - GS How do we fix this so we can work with ICANN? George Sadowsky - My experience with staff is different - do not think staff is particularly hostile to this effort - and I apologize for not being there earlier in the process and am willing to help however I can at this point. Avri Doria - really think we should include this discussion in the document and send it to the plenary. I have made numerous requests to get staff participation to little avail and am not optimistic of participation going forward. Jordan Carter - Agree with AD - we need plenary input. Have no ownership issues with the document and have no issues with staff writing some of this. Avri Doria: Not perfectly comfortable with this approach. Need to send this document along with the cover note so we can have the wider discussion. Jordan Carter 2: I'm relaxed about including it, because if people don't read it, they won't have a sense of what is being pushed against or for George Sadowsky: Nothing wrong with that, Avri. Greg Shatan - In asking to frame this we have to consider if we want to ask the plenary to read 19 pages. Avri Doria - pertinent part of document is now only 11 pages. Jordan Carter - Agree this needs Framing to go to the plenary and that this conversation has helped verbalize some of my discomfort. We are not looking for any editorial comments from the Plenary. avri doria: we need to be careful not to whitewash in our zeal to be comfortable Greg Shatan: One last working note: we may want to let Board members generally know that they can participate on an equal footing with other participants, rather than feeling like they must only "liaise." Avri Doria – I have made that clear to GS a number of times. Jordan Carter - will draft a one page cover framing what we are asking the plenary and we will finish this on the Thursday meeting. George Sadowsky - More than willing to put in comments in the Googledoc but there seems to be too many comments. Avri Doria - that should work. Ok we have a plan. JC will produce a document in the next few hours which will be considered on our Thursday call. In the meantime people can finish cleaning up as much as they want. Jordan Carter 2: i'll circulate that cover note to the group in about 12h, or about 15h George Sadowsky: I will put all my comments on the GooglerDocs within 24 hours. Avri Doria - The specificity of the recommendations will be in the B document but needs the input from the A document. Any AOB (none). Adjourned.

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelSupport-ICANN59Johannesburg-25June2017 Applications
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

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

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Meeting Documents for Face to Face in Copenhagen
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

All, This is simply a friendly reminder to the sub-groups that if they wish material to be considered by the Plenary at its face to face meeting in Copenhagen on 10 March that those materials have to be sent to Staff or the plenary list by 23:59UTC Friday 3 March. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions for ICANN Legal
by Greg Shatan Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Co-Chairs and Fellow Participants, Attached for the appropriate review and submission to ICANN Legal are several questions from the Jurisdiction Subgroup. Please let us know if there are any questions or concern before these are sent to ICANN Legal. When these are submitted to ICANN Legal, please ask for an estimate of the time to return answers, and advise them that they may respond on a rolling basis, if that will allow us to receive certain answers more quickly. For convenience, a link to a Google Doc version is also included: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HslgBieiTl2LNT1CXNct7ZS1Qi5lZy3r8Y42CVz… Thank you. Greg Shatan *Rapporteur* *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #13 | 24 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #13 – 24 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/y5zRAw 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) [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 15 Participants at start of call 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items Rafik Dammak - resend of questionnaire was not sent but it has been updated. Would look for approval on the list before Copenhagen. Report from Chris Gift was distributed to the list - this will be discussed at a later meeting whe CG is available. 3. Review of Draft Report: - Issues list Rafik Dammak: ""2.6 Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available. Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have higher probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation. "" Rafik Dammak - review of SKILLS discussion. Let us try and agree on text today. Sebastien Bachollet - I would like to express the reverse of some of the opinions. As I have stated skills you can always learn - diversity you cannot change a person. Rachel Pollack: The current wording seems much better to me. Building on what Sebastien said, perhaps the text could add an element related to the need for capacity building to further develop skills Fiona Asonga - Diversity of skills can be looked from different angles - can also mean that there is a mix of those that have skills with those that have less - those with a lack of skill will have an impact on discussions and decisions - so for me it is about ensuring there is a balance. We have to include the will and capacity to learn as part of the skill equation - need balance. Rafik Dammak - Like evaluating candidates for a job - you do not always get people with everything - need diversity to avoid group-think. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Will note strongly disagree with the idea that there is no opposition between skills and diversity. If we do not redouble efforts on diversity until there is some balance is achieved - otherwise we will keep to what is now - this is not acceptable. Julie Hammer - Want to clarify - people seem to think that this para is a standalone element of diversity - it is not - this is just one of the components of the entire report - this skill discussion is a part of the entire report. Mathieu Weill: +1 Julie, let's not get carried away. Rafik Dammak - Agree with JH we should not make too much of this. Sebastien Bachollet - I prefer a group with more diverstiy and less skills vs a highly skilled group with less diversity. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Agree w/ Sebastien mal Al-saqqaf: The nature of the position decides whether a specific skill is required or it's better to have diverse skills. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Sebastien, it is not about diversity OR skill, it is about diversity of skills. Everybody has some skills! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Julie, however, those who do get hired/selected do not represent diversity Renata Aquino Ribeiro: The stats are on the document itself avri doria: no amount of capacity training will give me the POV of an African.and thus i will never be able to bring the type of skill someone frm that region can bring. Sebastien Bachollet - its not just a question of diversity - its about diversity of POV is critical. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I agree it's not about any regional or aspect of diversity specific versus skill.. Yes, the POV is just not taken into account avri doria: and skill & experience ate dependent on POV. Mathieu Weill: We're still missing clarity on what we mean by skills. Tech skills ? Legal skills ? Which ones ? Negotiation skills, Reading & speaking English ? Project management skills ? avri doria: yes all of those and any other skill that may be discovered as needed some day in the future. Mathieu Weill: I agree with Avri that Point of View diversity is as required as skill Renata Aquino Ribeiro: all of those and the disproportional value they are given to some privileged groups Rafik Dammak - Example of Board requirements from the NomComm. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - We really need to focus on diversity or nothing will ever happen. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: trying to sum up what I've said for notes: when one thinks about high-level selection, there's a high value given to centennial universities on the resumé or dot-com experiences, some people who meet the diversity criteria will not have that but bring other things and can be even better with the opportunity for capacity building Renata Aquino Ribeiro: and yes Rafik you summed up well too Julie Hammer - At this point in the report we are simply trying to explain what we mean for these various elements - and we are not trying to say what the situation is or should be - we are simply trying to explain what it is as a group we understand the term to mean - it is for later in the report whre we should be evaluating what it actually those elements of diversity mean in each of the elements of ICANN. Amal Al-saqqaf: +1 Julie Rafik Dammak - So JH is saying we can define things here and there is room later on for recommendations on all aspects including skills. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Yes, that's correct! FIONA ASONGA: +1 Julie Sebastien Bachollet - Skills are just one of the 7 types of diversity and all have to be taken into account. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation. "" Renata Aquino Ribeiro: last phrase of the paragraph Julie Hammer (SSAC): - That was not the intended meaning! If it is read in context of the report that it would not suggest that meaning. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Julie Rafik Dammak - Following up on SB we may need to add text to state that all elements of diversity have to be considered vs putting too much weight on this para? Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes, make that a binding clause or yes, isolated, this wipes out the other efforts Rafik Dammak - seems to be support to include text proposed by JH so I will include both in the document and I will add at the end of the section the need to consider all the elements. maybe SB will provide some chapeau text for this section as he proposed. Lousewies van der Laan: A chapeau is a great idea - its used in treaties and helps get everyone on the same page Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Yes Renata Aquino Ribeiro: the text has this added phrase "If an original assessment of candidates is not sufficiently diverse to fulfill the skill, experience and diversity requirements necessary, then efforts need to be redoubled until diversity is achieved. Among those efforts, strengthening capacity building mechanisms for the skills required." Rafik Dammak - let us move this to the list this way and hopefully we can reach consensus on this point. (no objection). Any other elements to discuss? There has been some mention of ANTI-DISCRIMINATION any thoughts about this given there are already some rules about this in ICANN. Lousewies van der Laan - talking about what the grounds are for considering discrimination? (yes). If you start making a list it has to be very inclusive but there is a risk you will miss something - a more general statement can be more useful - we should decide what we want to do with this. Maybe we should go beyond DISCRIMINATION and move more towards other things such as being welcoming. We should list the DISCRIMINATION elements that are in ICANN. Rafik Dammak - Good point LVDL. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lists can be problematic IMO avri doria: well we can use the 'inter alia' construction i.e including by not limited to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): YES that helps if lists are essential... Herb Waye Ombuds: well said Lousewies avri doria: a comprehensive hite list is as hard to build as a bloack list. a comprehensive hite list is as hard to build as a black list. Dalila Rahmouni: As written by Julie, non-discrimination and diversity are different. FIONA ASONGA: I think we are assuming that the diversity mechanism is for leadership. That is just one aspect of ICANN it is also for the community and staff. I think we need to bear that braod perspective in mind Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): an affirmative approach is indeed my preference here as well... good points Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I like the idea of referencing good practices, safe spaces too... Good practices should be highlighted avri doria: and the bylaws to not include a non discimantory policy other than Section 2.3. NON-DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENTICANN shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for Fiona Asonga - we seem to be concentrating on diversity for leadership but our mandate is to look at diversity for all elements of ICANN. Rafik Dammak: thanks Avri, we can refer that in our document avri doria: so according to the bylaws discrimination is the service of competition seems ok. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Fiona, that has always been my view, it is not just about leadership positions. Dalila Rahmouni: Non-discrimination is part of Human Rights as Diversity a requirement avri doria: also in core values: v) Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently, neutrally, objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment (i.e., making an unjustified prejudicial distinction between or among different parties); and lousewies: I agree Fiona ! well said Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes indeed avri doria: the equal employment policy is very vanilla and a std doc for incororated entities.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4C745NEsGNqd3N1ZXl0dVpVX2s the equal employment doc Renata Aquino Ribeiro - status on office of diversity? Are we trying to develop a list of grounds for discrimination? Rafik Dammak - It has been added to the document but we have not discussed it further. Additionally SB has sent a document about the Offices to the plenary list. Our document is open for comments and suggestions - ask everyone to contribute to the document and on list. As to the list it seems that there is a preference to have a general statement vs a list. avri doria: it should be accesible. Dalila Rahmouni: the proposal is the document page 8 Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes about complaints and ombudsman offices etc Dalila Rahmouni: Yes, suggestions are welcomed Renata Aquino Ribeiro: ok thanks Renata Aquino Ribeiro: about LW points on discrimination what was the stand again? Fiona Asonga - have noted the various comments and will integrate in the document. Rafik Dammak - thanks all and Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 21 | 23 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #21 – 23 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/TJDRAw A copy of the 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) [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Action Items: * GS to complete editing of questions for ICANN Legal and forward to CCWG-Accountability for review. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 15 Participants at start of call – 29 at halfway mark 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: no changes to SOIs. Agenda accepted. 2. Questionnaire Update a. Method for processing responses Christopher Wilkinson - Would be useful to have staff collate and classify. Greg Shatan - Would be useful to have staff do this. 3. Scope, Timeline and Work Product of Subgroup Greg Shatan - We are late - would be good to get back on track. Will try to put together a timeline for your consideration. As to work product we have a number of documents that are all half-finished such as the Hypothetical. I am also thinking that we could possibly talk iteratively about remedies to some of the issues - i.e. the question of immunity. David McAuley - thank you for these comments. Part of our challenge is the unfortunate language on jurisdiction in Annex 12. We may need to discuss scope again. wrt hypotheticals I do not agree - it is about the future that is uncertain - best to consider past and documentd cases. wrt influence of existing jurisdcition is a task for us and we may need to look at it again. Kavouss Arasteh - (unclear on which point we are on, request clarification). Do not agree we do not look at the future we need to look at the future so disagree with DM. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): discussing scope will get us back into circles... let's wait for the feedback to the questionnaire Tatiana Tropina: discussing the scope can wait till we collect the responses, however, I agree with David re future and predictions vs. actual analysis on the basis of what already happened matthew shears: agree with David on looking at the past litigation rather than hypothetical Tatiana Tropina: Matt, yes, this might also help solving the scope problem David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Kavouss - interesting point which I will consider Gerg Shatan - past litigation analysis are necessary. Hypotheticals that are probable vs possible are probably very useful also. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): past litigation might help emerge a part of the problems of the past - but other issues may not have got to the stage of litigation and are equally relevant Tatiana Tropina: The analysis of past litigation can turn hypothetical prediction into analysis of future risks but this is rather risk assessment than hypothetical, Greg. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/ Greg that we might compose probable hypotheticals - I just don't think we can well guess at court reactions to those Tatiana Tropina: David, +1 - we can only say if this is a serious risk or not based on our "assessment" matthew shears: past litigation should at least enable us to put more relevant parameters and better scoping possible futures Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let us also always remember that accountability is to the global community Tatiana Tropina: Matt, yes, that's how I see it. Moreover, the future can be, er, beyond anyone's prediction. Jorge, I remember this 24/7 :-) Seun Ojedeji - re Hypotheticals if they are probably they should be looked at Greg Shatan: Hypotheticals need to be reasonable likely and reasonably clear. Kavouss Arasteh: The methodology to address the jurisdiction is totally unclear Steve DelBianco: the way we designed Stress Tests in WS1 was to propose plausible scenarios that would test the accountability structures, both existing and proposed matthew shears: if there is time perhaps we wait on legal responses and litigation findings and then revisit the hypotheticals - may help in narrowing the hypotheticals Kavouss Arasteh: It is difficult to carry out this mixed discussion. Steve DelBianco: It wasn't necessary for the scenarios to be "reasonaly likely". Only that they were plausible. 4. Review & Finalize Questions for ICANN Legal Greg Shatan - (Review of draft questions). any comments on the current version of the draft? Kavouss Arasteh - need examples for 2A. Becky Burr: Amsterdam Becky Burr: Black Knight, a contracted party, is incorporated in Ireland. Maybe should read US states and US jurisdictions other than California. For example, DC is not a state Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Puerto Rico Becky Burr: Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. David McAuley - Please ignore my latest first comment. Why at then end to ask about the choice of venue which seems to be beyond our scope Greg Shatan - these are amongst the multiple layers of jurisdiction. Kavouss Arasteh: what is meant by General Jurisdiction and Specific Jurisdiction pls give examples avri doria: aren't venue and jurisdiction related. intrinsically David McAuley (RySG): I think they are related but not the same and wonder why we ask about venue Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Venue is an element in juridiction analysis avri doria: becasue it can have a jurisdictional effect? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): it may - for some issues - e.g. for procedural rules Kavouss Arasteh - what is the difference general jurisdiction vs specific and what is proper venue. Greg Shatan: Proper venue = case can be heard there. As to jurisdiction - general jurisdiction over the entire entity and all matters vs specific which only applies to certain purposes. Any objections to sending this to the legal committee. matthew shears: Great idea Greg - lets send it on its way asap David McAuley (RySG): A US federal court could decide that an issue in front of it is under both US and French jurisdiction – and dismiss the case based on its belief that venue is proper in France. That would not destroy US jurisdiction. matthew shears: yes, lets send it on its ways asap Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the answer to these questions may be helpful - although we may need to send in follow-up questions. Kavouss Arasteh - when will get an answer to this? Greg Shatan - any objections (none). DECISION: will send to Legal Committee once cleaned up per our discussions today and will ask to have an estimate time for a response from ICANN Legal. 5. Continue Work on Hypothetical #1 Greg Shatan - someone is suing ICANN because they have been harmed - they win - the court issues an order telling ICANN to do or not something (delegate or not a TLD). Steve DelBianco - when I read this it is plausible scenario. However this is not the stress test approach.Need to compare how things play out in our current jurisdiction scenario vs others. Greg Shatan - Difficult in this case. Steve DelBianco: True, Greg We made our scenarios somewhat more specific, and asked about how ICANN could be held accountable for how the corporation responded to the scenario Greg Shatan - (looking at comments in document). Kavouss Arasteh - difficult document. why we need to go so far in this straw man? Greg Shatan - Just showing the options and that a decision is rarely final - things can be appealed - we have left out the issue of settlement. this does not refer to a specific law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the more you go into details, the more differences we would see. Kavouss Arasteh: It is very difficult to digest this complex hypothesis Greg Shatan - please continue to work on the document. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Steve's point made sense - if we want to stress test the current jurisdictions - but maybe at a later stage when we get ICANN Legals answer and the answers to the questionnaire 6. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation Greg Shatan - we need to get this done please sign up and analyze a case. 7. Adjourned Decisions: * GS to forward questions for ICANN Legal to CCWG-Accountability Legal Committee after editing per discussion at this meeting. Action Items: * GS to complete editing of questions for ICANN Legal and forward to CCWG-Accountability for review.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 23 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #22 – 23 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7pvRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ Notes SO/AC Accountability Meeting #22 23 February 2017 @ 05:00 UTC 8 Participants at start of call. 0. Call Administration Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Seun audio only. any updates to SOIs? (none).Any changes to agenda? (none). 1. Review of any AI's from call #21 on February 16th Cheryl Langdon-Orr - asked for more contributions to the documents. Thanks to all for those. 2. Any Updates: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Updates? (none). Plenary met a few hours ago and would encourage all who did not attend to listen to the recordings. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation, readings and review. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Looking for polishing contributions. Looking forward to submitting the report for 3 March so it can have a first reading on 10 March. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's Farzaneh Badii - there is nothing new in this document and it has been included in the consolidated document by SDB. b) Review and discuss (as 1st reading for the WT) the Consolidated Draft Report Steve DelBianco - As promised the consolidated document was distributed on Monday with V1.0. 24 hours ago we generated a V1.1 version. NPOC members have been updating the document but not all those comments are consistent between themselves - so this seems to be their contribution as they have not answered the questionnaire. Only two left have not answered the questionnaire RySG, which we hope will answer and RSSAC which will not. SB asked where he should focus Ombudsman related issues and have pointed him to the relevant sections. The most important part for this group is to come to consensus on the recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would be doing the Consolidated doc in reverse to ensure the least discussed part get more time for discussion, but I see that is 'just me'. At least 2 of the three threads have been well covered in the oast ;-) so we should be able to cover those off almost 'pro forma' Steve DelBianco - Any general comments? (none). Going through the recommendations (starting page 9). Alan Greenberg – We need to change SHOULD to SHOULD CONSIDER DOCUMENTING given it may not be applicable to all those groups. Steve DelBianco - The word CONSIDER is included earlier in the text and could be added in each recommendation. Could also include WHERE APPLICABLE (support no objection). Farzaneh Badii - Re AG points - CHALLENGING results of ELECTIONS is fine but DECISONS seems much too broad. Steve DelBianco - These were the questions used in the questionnaire and the SOACs have responded to so it would difficult to explain such a change at this late stage. Given we are including WHERE APPLICABLE would allow an out anyways. Farzaneh Badii: that’s fine then Tatiana Tropina - Same concerns as FB and AG - maybe we can ask them WHICH decisions can be challenged. Its up to SOACs to decide which ones can be but clearly document this. On the second recommendation - have to be clear it is WHERE APPLICABLE. Steve DelBianco - (repeating the caveats in front of every recommendation). Aan Greenberg - do not share cocnerns of FB and TT because of the caveats and lets not wordsmith this now. Farzaneh Badii: but then they might cherry pick and say it's not applicable here or there Tatiana Tropina: Oh this is it. I meant type of decisions and Alan means processes Steve DelBianco - next transparency on page 13 - 6 recommendations that have been well discussed. Comments? Farzaneh Badii - re rec. 6 all COMMENTS including CORRESPONDENCE? Steve DelBianco - this is current practice and making it a best practice. Alan Greenberg - there is some correspondence that is confidential and cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - seeking input on this to fix. Onto participation page 19 - 6 recommendations. (no comments). Onto OUTREACH. Alan Greenberg - Re rec 4 - are minutes and or recordings of closed meeting should be accessible to members.? Steve DelBianco - correct. Alan Greenberg - again we need exceptions - sometimes the ALAC discusses individuals for nominations and this cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - will add subject to exceptions and confidential matters. Onto Outreach recommendations page 23 - 5 recommendations. (no comments). Last section Update to procedures 1 recommendation on page 25. Farzaneh Badii - Outreach groups have to be small or you cannot decide anything. Seun Ojedeji: do not agree on putting a size comment in. Steve DelBianco - insert something along the lines of "appropriate size'. On to track 2 Mutual Accountability Table - our conclusion is it is not recommended for formal implementation. Any objections to this recommendation (none). Onto Track 3 - Does IRP apply to SOAC activities (page 29) - is not applicable and should not be made applicable. Any objections (none). Will take these comments and circulate a new version in the next few days. Alan Greenberg - there will be minor updates to my contribution document but these should not be critical if they do not make it into the first reading document. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Second reading of this document will be made on the 2 March call. Important to have good participation. Action Item - Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it and have proper comments for the call. Also please advise the rapporteurs if you will be present at the face to face meeting in Copenhagen so we can plan the presentation of our document. Farzaneh Badii: I will send reminders to the list to read the doc 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • 10 March full day CCWG F2F at ICANN58 Copenhagen • Other dates and times after CPH Meeting will be arranged by staff TBC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (none). Adjourned. Action Items: · Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it, vs doing it on the call, and have proper comments for the call. · All, please advise the rapporteurs if you will be present at the face to face meeting in Copenhagen so we can plan the presentation of our document.

1 0

General issue that came in Staff Accountability subgroup
by avri doria Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

But which I have seen elsewhere. Does/should WS2 have a consistent terminology for deal with the dichotomy between a single ICANN multistakeholder organization and the Trinity of Board, Staff & the community. Each person writing a doc finds another clever way to try and express this, but they all differ a bit. It struck us that it might be useful for there to be one set of language for expressing this across the work we are doing. Is there such a set of terminology that I have missed? perhaps this can be added to AOB in the plenary meeting? thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 6

Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT Plenary Meeting #13 | 22 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #13 – 22 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/q5DRAw 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) Action Items: · Staff to prepare public comment for Good Faith Recommendations · Staff to work with the groups that have active consultations to have a standard set of slides for the co-chairs to support these during Copenhagen. · Staff to reach out to rapporteurs to establish a draft agenda for Copenhagen. · Co-Chairs and staff to create a document for plenary consideration on the topic of time extension. · Staff to reach out to plenary to identify volunteers should produce a draft glossary for terms to refer to the three parts of ICANN for our next meeting. · SB to liaise with co-chairs to draft a request for information on selection of Ombudsman evaluator. Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 31 participants at start of call 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior Mathieu Weill - Keith Drazek audio only. No updates to SOIs. Will be the only co-chair on this call. 2. Review of Agenda Mathieu Weill: Any changes? (none) 3. Administration • Review of action items from previous meeting Bernard Turcotte - Review of Action Items. • Update on ATRT3 Bernard Turcotte - gNSO has considered but not concluded. GAC should give a response by end of month or by Copenhagen. • Travel funding for ICANN59 Bernard Turcotte - Reminder application period is open and will close after Copenhagen on 19 March- Please apply early if you intend to apply. Decisions will be made the week of 20 March to meet ICANN Travel requirements. 4. Legal Committee Update • There are no pending requests. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups • Good Faith Guideline – Second Reading Lori Schulman - (recap of recommendations). Mathieu Weill - Any comments or questions on these recommendations? (none). Any objections to adopting these recommendations for the second reading and sending these to public comment (none - full consensus). Decision: Good Faith recommendations approved for public comment. Action Item - Staff to prepare public comment for Good Faith Recommendations. Action item - Staff to work with the groups that have active consultations to have a standard set of slides for the co-chairs to support these during Copenhagen. 6. Review agenda for Face to Face meeting Mathieu Weill - Please note that we have reached out to the ICANN CEO to come and exchange with us again at Copenhagen. Hope we can get one of the StaffAcct documents ready. Diversity should have a questionnaire ready for consideration. Niels ten Oever: There is a chance the HR group will have smth ready for 1st reading by March 7 David McAuley - Request brief time in Copenhagen for an update to discuss the upcoming tasks such as creating the panel. Also to remind people we are a work in progress. Would request 10 minutes overall – (MW) will include an update on public comments - will take longer than 10'. Sebastien Bachollet - 10' slot for each sub-group could be good. Re Complaints Office – from our discussions there is a need for a place to put certain things which should not go to the Ombuds office. avri doria: and the community will really need to decide whether this new function is credible before putting too many extra functions in it. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: What if there is a problem with the complaints office? What is the accountability mechanism for the new complaints office? Lori Schulman: You could say that about compliance generally. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: It seems we have a conflict of interest with legal overseeing complaints office because legal's fiduciary duty is to protect the corporation. So that is in conflict with objectivity and neutrality, which is a requirement for an appropriate complaints office. Lori Schulman: I agree. Maybe smarter to put complaints under CFO. Edward Morris: +1 Robin. Action Item: Staff to reach out to rapporteurs to establish a draft agenda for Copenhagen. 7. Review of Schedule/Timeline Kavouss Arasteh - Should ask rapporteurs to not repeat decisions that have been completed. Similarly this group has agreed on the timeline for IRP so this should not be done again. Similarly for Ruggie principles in Human Rights. There are budget limitations and we cannot keep repeating to get thing perfect. Mathieu Weill - good point KA but we need a stable consensus and our rules are mentioned in our charter and we have to be careful to follow these. Avri Doria - Beg to differ with KA on this issue. We use the two readings rules but we need consensus. We made it a condition at the beginning that it takes multiple passes, and until we have comments from the community we do not have consensus. We try to cover each subject to the best of our abilities. Tatiana Tropina: Agree Avri - with every word. Lori Schulman: Support Avri's explanation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and most of us agree nothing is ever decided in or at s single call David McAuley (RySG): Yes, agree, @CLO Mathieu Weill - the only rule we have is the charter and I see support for your point in the chat. Kavouss Arasteh - Disagree with those views. Mathieu Weill - want to say the co-chairs all support the rapporteurs and can assist if there are issues they need help with. Bernard Turcotte – (Presentation of slides) Mathieu Weill: There is a very high probability that we will need to go into FY18 to complete all the work. As such we would like your inputs. Especially to understand how we need to close our work. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: This extension will impact on ATRT3 timeline presumably. Kavouss Arasteh - is this a discussion or a decision? we need a real document about this topic with the advantages and disadvantages. Then we can consider it properly. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): in the end you need a chartering orgs approval - and that is easier if there is a package Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, one by one. Niels ten Oever: So at least the people who are done are liberated from the process and can focus on other work. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agree with Jorge: prefer single package approach and there may be intersects between topics too presumably. Sebastien Bachollet - we need one final report that has all the recommendations in one document. Will make it simpler to go to CO and Board approval. Mathieu Weill - note in the chat support for separate submissions. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: It will be difficult for SGs to write comments on all issues at once. Better to focus. David McAuley: Strongly support for one final public consultation at the end because of the potential interactions between the groups. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Mathieu ,not exactly Lori Schulman: Agree with David. I think joining the topics makes sense with one consultation. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: One document will be put out either way. It is just a matter of approving them in a focused matter. Greg Shatan: i don't think every topic intersects with every other one. We can look for those that are not cross-dependent. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, Greg. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): good points, David Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Agree with David. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Support a single final document and consultation because of interdependencies - also think that a number of groups will require 2 public consultations. Michael Karanicolas: +1 again Niels, but also, I think there's a risk recommendations may get stale if left to sit for too long. Energy supporting the ideas may dissipate, new external developments may happen, etc. Tijani Ben Jemaa - See the merit of a final joint report - agree with DM point. Concerned that the various groups are moving at different paces - how do we handle this. David McAuley (RySG): yes Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Leaving everything open just leaves room for the people who did the work to go away, waiting for the other groups to finish, to find out everything they did has been traded away for something else in another subgroup. not a good strategy. Michael Karanicolas: Also, not sure why potential conflicts can't be addressed by the working groups interacting. This was raised with transparency, and so we engaged in dialogue w the Ombudsman and Human Rights groups to help resolve. Mathieu Weill - TBJ good point but have no solution to propose at this time. Will close the queue after CLO. David McAuley (RySG): Michael weren't those engagements just between rapporteurs though? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): If some subgroups stray completely out of the deadlines perhaps we need some hard deadlines Sebastien Bachollet - Support DM and CLO but once the sub-groups are finished and its up to the plenary to build the final recommendations. Kavous Arasteh - The sub-group topics are so different - why we have to wait for those un-related groups to finish. Why not have two categories the Interrelated groups and those that are not which could them be independent. Michael Karanicolas: @David - on the human rights side, yes, because there wasn't much of a view that a conflict existed. On Ombudsman, Rapporteurs were the ones speaking, but we followed up with our subgroups, as well as other stakeholders (the Ombudsman) to solicit inputs. David McAuley (RySG): With respect, I disagree w/Kavouss – these topics share common considerations/bases in some respects Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Support RG and TBJ points. Would also seem to make sense as was presented by SB. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Dvid, you may continue to disagree with any suggestion that I make???? David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Michael, I remain of the view that we need one final report but if we went one-by-one then potential conflicts should be addressed by joint meetings of whole groups affected - but I remain of view for one final consultation Kavouss Arasteh 2: two groups Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): again, a final deadline could be sensible - to assemble all efforts and focus work David McAuley (RySG): +1 @Jorge Mathieu Weill - very useful exchange - We will also need input from the chartering let us have an action item to create a document as to our approach on this for discussion in Copen organizations. Action Item: Co-Chairs and staff to create a document for plenary consideration on the topic of time extension. 8. Next Plenaries Mathieu Weill - Do we need a 1 March plenary - recommend we skip (no objections - cancelled). Decision: 1 March plenary cancelled. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): On march 1st some of us will be at the IGF open consultations... Kavouss Arasteh 2: Mathieu+1 David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Mathieu 9. AOB Avri Doria - One of the things we noted in Staff Acct. is that we were getting confused wrt labels of ICANN, ICANN org. ICANN staff ICANN the Trinity etc. We need some standardization. Mathieu Weill - good point AD. Need consistency. Would look for volunteers to create draft glossary for our consideration in Copenhagen. Sebastien Bachollet - this question is more important today than before. Seems ICANN staff is being called ICANN Org. by the CEO which I do not agree with. Suggestion of a small group is good - maybe talk to CEO about this. Will volunteer if there is a group. Kavouss Arasteh: Interesting issue. Merits to be discussed because everyone has their own definitions of some terms. Tijani Ben Jemaa: It is a problem to have the people using the same terms to mean different things. The simplest is needed - we have three parts of ICANN which need unique labels and definitions. Discussion in plenary is good - working group uncertain. Alan Greenberg - The new CEO seems wedded to using ICANN org for staff and we should work around that. Action Item - Staff to reach out to plenary to identify volunteers should produce a draft glossary for terms to refer to the three parts of ICANN for our next meeting. avri doria: i have not asked my subgroup but i bet they volunteer me. so sign me up as penance. Sebastien Bachollet: Re Ombusman review status - discreptencies between what the sub-group thought they were to be involved in selection but we have had no input. We need the co-chairs to help us with that. Mathieu Weill - let us draft a request for information offline so we can be updated. Action Item: SB to liaise with co-chairs to draft a request for information on selection of Ombudsman evaluator. Adjournment Decisions: · Good Faith recommendations approved for public comment. · 1 March plenary cancelled.

1 0