- Accountability-Cross-Community

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment. The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are: remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32. The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input: A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017 To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including: Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN. For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…” Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented. Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs. Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices. We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1 Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

6 8

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #12 _ 30 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #12 - 30 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/JbDRAw 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<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFAg&…> ________________________________ NOTES 1. Intro: agenda review, attendance, SOI check 2. Debrief from ICANN 58 * The full plenary discussion and results * Discuss staff engagement in group with Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Comment from George - "do we think we can achieve the frank level of discussion necessary in open sessions?" Avri - that is the intention and we will monitor as we go along. 3. Plan going forward * Discussions with staff * Early engagement of co-rapporteurs with specific senior staff * Inclusion of a number of senior staff members in the group work as within their work scope. * Policy of 'non-retaliation' for all participants * Issue analysis collection * Issue analysis table at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utRO… * Discuss relation to 3 current documents George - "it will be important to define the goals of these discussions to avoid protracted conversations that lose focus" Avri and Patrick both highlighted the framework of the issues tracker and the approach of determining root cause issues before moving into discussion of solutions or mechanisms. 4. Schedule update * Deadline for issues submission Deadline for issues submissions was set for next Thursday, 6 April. Next call scheduled for next Friday, 7 April, 5:00 UTC Avri taking action item to coordinate future calls to ensure weekly calls through April in order to achieve first plenary reading by mid-May. 5. AOB none

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-Meeting-20170329 Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

All, Here is the agenda for the Wednesday 29 March 1300 plenary. Adobe room as usual is https://participate.icann.org/accountability Agenda: 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration - Staffing changes - Review of action items from previous meeting - DashBoard data and completion dates. - Status on open public comments. 4. Legal Committee Update - Jurisdiction sub-group questions to ICANN Legal. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups - SOAC Accountability - Second reading (updated document) - Diversity Questionnaire - Second reading (updated document) 6. Next Plenary - Wednesday 12 April 1900UTC - Documents due 5 April 23:59UTC 7. AOB 8. Adjournment Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-Ws2

5 5

Notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #15 | 23 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #15 – 23 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/O6vRAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2A3C2.6AEE9810] Action Items: · FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. · FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group. Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 12 Participants at start of call 1. Roll Call 2. Review of Actions items: * RD will update the questionnaire and transmit to plenary list for inclusion for face to face meeting. (completed) * RD to poll group for languages needed for interpretation and send request to plenary by 7 March 2359 UTC requesting interpretation services for these. (completed) 3. Review feedback from Copenhagen meeting Questionnaire Fiona Asonga - circulated new version of questionnaire on 12 March. Any questions or queeries? (none). Consensus of first reading. Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: yes Dalila RAHMOUNI 2: yes Julie Hammer - do we need a second reading? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: take it to Plenary on 29 the.... fine by me Renata Aquino Ribeiro: yes Bernard Turcotte - Plenary expecting draft recommendations and the questionnaire. Julie Hammer - questionnaire should be separate and go to the plenary. Fiona Asonga - Have been asked to include draft recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - need to get a questionnaire to next plenary on 29 March and we will get the recommendations to a following plenary and then publish both together. Fiona Asonga - Propose we are with approach by CLO? (no objections). Decision – Submit questionnaire to plenary for second reading at its 29 March meeting. Interpretation Bernard Turcotte - Have the 3 request for French and Spanish interpretation - need the schedule of calls to end of June to make the request. Fiona Asonga - working on schedule of calls to end of June (action item). Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Suggest Rafik and Fiona publish a draft schedule for May and June to the list and anyone with strong objections can post these. Fiona Asonga - will do. Action Item – FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. Report/recommendations Fiona Asonga - need more volunteers for the drafting group. Will send a request to the list Action Item – FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group. 4. AOB Julie Hammer - Concern about costing of the various proposals by the various WS2 sub-groups. Is our recommendation that there be an office of Diversity without considering all the requirements and impacts. My take away, perhaps, what needs to happen without proposing an organizational solution at this time. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Agree we have to follow process - send out questionnaire gather input and then seriously consider the recommendations. Avri Doria - Agree that organizational change is probably premature at this point. May not be premature to say we need a function in the organization without needing a formal organizational change. Julie Hammer (SSAC): Agree, Avri! Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: agree with avri Julie Hammer (SSAC): Yes, that is what I was trying to say! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Avri I like that idea of address too but yes discussing its shape later Fiona Asonga - will leave the Diversity Office item in the report but will note that for now that is simply a place holder for the idea. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: my green tick was up for Julie and Avri's innervations, yes Julie Hammer (SSAC): Suggest we describe it functionally, not organizationally, as Avri said. Fiona Asonga - any further items? (none). Actions items present questionnaire at 29 plenary, finalize schedule to end of June ASAP to get interpretation request sent - send a request for participants to join the drafting team - the report will note that the recommendation for a Diversity office is simply a place holder for now. Decisions: · Submit questionnaire to plenary for second reading at its 29 March meeting. · Note in the current version of the report that the recommendation for a Diversity office is simply a place holder for now. Action Items: · FA – Publish a draft schedule of meetings to the end of June to the Diversity list for comments. Then publish final to complete Interpretation request. · FA – Post a request for volunteers to join the Recommendations drafting group.

1 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 27 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #24 here; https://community.icann.org/x/3rnRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2A71A.84FB3690] Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 15 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - Changes to SOI? (none). Any issues to agenda? (none) 2. Continued First Reading (of two) of the Considerations document Niels ten Oever - (continuing where we left off last week - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8… ) Niels ten Oever - (strating from The Policies and frameworks.....- reading text of proposal). Para 1 comments? (none). Para 2 comments? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): As per Niels, to be added at the end of this paragraph: "Human Rights should not be selectively analyzed since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Kavouss Arasteh - re INAPPROPRIATE suggest use another word - DOES NOT SEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE HERE or NOT RELEVANT HERE. Tatiana Tropina: "not relevant in the context of this FoI" Tatiana Tropina: or doesn’t not fit for the purpose of this FoE Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Tatiana's suggestion on this Tatiana Tropina: I can live with this, agree with Kavouss to replace Anne Aikman-Scalese - my suggestion above seems to go somewhere else? Niels ten Oever - correct 2 paras down. Greg Shatan - re INNAPROPRIATE would prefer to simply add HERE. Re AAS suggestion - better to say it here? cannot just apply suggestion to HRIA - so should probably be here and not later or here and later. John Laprise: Agree w/Greg Niels ten Oever: Text to which Greg and Anne are referring: Niels ten Oever: Human Rights should not be selectively analyzed since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. could agree to put it either or in both. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): is "analyzed" the right word? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): or should we use "considered"? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "should not be considered in isolation, since they are..." Tatiana Tropina - NOT APPROPRIATE - Niels ten Oever: The subgroup notes that the word “commitment” used in this sentence is not appropriate of interpreting the Human Rights Core Value. Tatiana Tropina: in the conext of interpreting HR CV Kavouss Arasteh - Do agree with GS word. Support JC proposal. Niels ten Oever: The subgroup notes that the word “commitment” used in this sentence is not quite appropriate for interpreting the Human Rights Core Value. Seems to be acceptable (no objections). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): full text for the non-cherry-picking: "Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Niels ten Oever - JC text could be added at the end. Anne Aikman-Scalese - fine with JC language. Also like TT languae before. Tatiana Tropina: I am comfortable with no cherry picking clause. I would avoid proportionality as it's up to courts and it is a very complex issue - we have to get to the weeds and will never come back. But am comfortable with cherry picking. Greg Shatan - re JC text - need to say EACH or individual - best to try using the language in Annex 6 which is consensus language. Andrew Mack: individual human rights should not be considered separately Andrew Mack: ? Tatiana Tropina: Individual human rights has double meaning in this context Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Good point Tatiana Tatiana Tropina: Might be considered as human rights of an individual Andrew Mack: yes Tatiana Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "discrete" is so awful? Tatiana Tropina: "No specific human right shall be considered in isolation" Greg Shatan - that would work. Kavouss Arasteh - do not understand why we need specific. Disagree with this. Agree with PARTICULAR but not SPECIFIC. Niels ten Oever: Particular Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Andrew Mack: either seems ok to me Niels ten Oever - Next para "consistent with ICANN's existing processes and...." Kavouss Arasteh - re gNSO portion just "allow" seems wrong should be " should or shall or must allow". Tatiana Tropina: expected to allow Tatiana Tropina: me likes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): it does already allow by the way Anne Aikman-Scalese - re CLO because the PDP says it must already. Markus Kummer - since the Bylaws say Allow lets keep it as is. Kavouss Arasteh - are we discussing the FOI or the PDP. If we use the PDP then let us quote and identify it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We could say "The GNSO Policy Development Process" provides for Greg Shatan - Agree with AAS. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with Anne Tatiana Tropina: it should address Kavouss concern, too - no? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Kavouss Arasteh - Agree with AAS suggestion. Neils ten Oever - next para "consider how the interpretation and implementation....". Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): One suggestion here to avoid the issue of "principles of proportionality" expressed in the drafting team is to do this:"HRIAs should avoid "cherry-picking" and should honor the principle that Human Rights are indivisible and interdependent." Kavouss Arasteh - cannot understand AAS proposal - why do we need this? Tatiana Tropina: I like Anne's compromise. Honoring the invisibility and interdependency is ol Anne Aikman-Scalese - could agree with KA - we could go back to the original language. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): could we refer back to the language we agreed just before? tatiana Tropina - like AAS compromise - uncertain about the word "principal". will put my suggestion from the chat. Niels ten Oever: HRIA should consider not consider Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Niels ten Oever: HRIA should not consider Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): HRIA should be consistent with the principle that specific Human Rights should not be considered in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Tatiana Tropina: yes we can do that as well - Anne? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): should not consider "particular" Human rights Niels ten Oever: HRIA should not consider particular Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Niels ten Oever: HRIAs should not consider particular Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Tatiana Tropina: yes am very happy too. I can't believe my ears and eyes Anne Aikam-Scalese - Drafting team note that there is a need to have a mechanism to consider how to address HR violations. Uncertain where it goes. Greg Shatan - where "policies and processes ICANN needs to implement..." Niels ten Oever - lets take this to the drafting team and review on our call next week. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree with Niels Greg Shatan: +1 Kavouss Arasteh - Re from GAC meeting - do not see all SOACs the same and not pick on GAc only. Niels ten Oever - thought it was fixed - if not lets discuss on list. KA please send to list. Ajourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #19 | 27 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #19 – 27 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0LHRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2A6E7.60BC3910] Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 5 participants at start of call (+7 staff, Ombuds, Board member and consultant) Roll Call / Apologies – Welcome Sebastien Bachollet - Agenda approved, no changes to SOIs. Participation & Dashboard Sebastien Bachollet - Draft dashboard response (no objections). External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office Interviews Lars Hoffmann - update on interviews. Survey may overlap with some surveys but this is not seen as an issue. Survey Lars Hoffmann - We have no issues with any of the comments you have made. Phil Khoury - not expecting a vast number of responses - so the results of the survey may not be statistically significant. Sebastien Bachollet - understood and agreed. I will close comments on the questionnaire and you can finalize it after that. Phil Khoury – (presentation of survey) Sebastien Bachollet - We have agreed that it is the Office of the Ombuds and not Ombudsman. Herb Waye - bylaws say Office of the Ombudsman and new rules say Office of the Ombudsperson. avri doria: Might also be good to ask people whether they have ever been the target of an ombuds investigation/complaints, simlar to 3/4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Phil focus on the office/? function jot individuals Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good addition @Avri - should include organizations or groups and this should be include.It happened to me when I was Chair of the ALAC. avri doria: could speak of being party to one, and then asking whether as a complainant, defendnat, of 3rd party. then other questions can focus on party and answeres can be correlated. though some people may have been all three. avri doria: ... complainant, defendant, or third party Sebastien Bachollet - this sounds like a good idea but probably difficult to integrate into this questionnaire. Phil Khoury - indeed - we will look at doing this. Sebastien Bachollet - Any further comments or questions? (none). PK please proceed with adjustments as discussed. Asha Hemrajani: I have a general question on the distribution of this survey. How will this be distributed as widely as possible? Lars Hoffmann - We will have the survey translated - it will go up on the ICANN Website - have also readched out to the policy dept and will use the regional news letters and social media. I will write a quick draft which can be a basis to communicate this your personal contacts. Asha Hemrajani: Thanks Lars. I like the idea of the personal note Asha Hemrajani: We should aim for a high response rate to get feedback from as large a base as possible. Sebastien Bachollet - when do we stop accepting responses. Lars Hoffmann - suggest we play it by ear - will discuss after the two weeks. Asha Hemrajani: Lars' approach makes sense. Asha Hemrajani: Herb, perhaps you could include the link to the survey on your blog? Suggestion Herb Waye - will distribute widely through a blog post, my website and my contact list. Asha Hemrajani: excellent Herb! ICANN Anti-Harassment Policy Sebastien Bachollet - This is here to remind us that we have to include this is the tasks of the Ombuds Office. My concern is in the Board resolution in the last part where the CEO is the responsible for evaluating if this is the best place for this - concerned vs independence. Additionally, CONTINUE TO MONITOR is troubling - the Board yes but ICANN org sounds like it goes against the Bylaws. We need to include this in our work. avri doria: why is The Organization evaluating whether the program is appropriate for the community? Klaus Stoll: Sebastien, you have a point here! Klaus Stoll: Yes, this needs to be addressed in our recommendations. avri doria: but our group, i assume you mean this subgroup, is transitory and should blink out of existence at some point in the not too distant future. Herb Waye Ombuds: I agree... ICANN organization has an anti-harassment policy for HR, there may be some crosscontamination but the community should review for itself Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): periodic reviews cheryl Langdon-Orr - periodic reviews seem to be the way forward. Re concern - re gender of who you complaining to - it is a very complex thing - and would warn us away from this rabbit hole - first we have have to stop saying male and female - its gender - next any professional Ombuds has all sorts of tools and options etc. So would recommend we keep a LIGHT TOUCH on this. Sebastien Bachollet - reason I am raising this is the Board resolution. Sebastien (ALAC): Resolved (2017.03.16.12), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to (1) ensure that the Organization continues to monitor whether the Office of the Ombudsman is the appropriate place for Community members to file a complaint under the Community Anti-Harassment Policy, and to annually review the Policy for future enhancements, as needed; (2) make ICANN Organization's Human Resources department available to assist in complaints where the complainant has indicated a preference to engage with a person of a different gender than the current Ombudsman. Herb Waye - best quick fix is to have a female adjunct. Will be discussing this when I go to LA in a few weeks. Hope to have a solid answer in the short term. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): it may be more than gender and same gender can also be a problem as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes adjunct is a way forward Herb Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also working in isolation with a complaint can also be a concern Next meeting #20 Monday 3 April 2017 AOB (none)

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170329 Documents
by Bernard Turcotte March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

All, We are still working on finalizing a detailed agenda for the face to face meeting 29 March 1300UTC - which we hope to distribute to this list early next week. In the meantime and as agreed please find the various documents which will be presented at that meeting. These include: - Sub-Group Documents - SO/AC Accountability - draft for second reading - CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170329-SOACAcct-DraftRecommendationsV1.1 - CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170329-SOACAcct-DraftRecommendationsV1.0 to 1.1 red line - Diversity questionnaire for second reading - CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170329-Diversity-QuestionnaireV1.1 - CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170329-Diversity-QuestionnaireV1.0 to 1.1 red line Thank You and have a good weekend reading the documents Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 23 MAR 17
by MSSI Secretariat March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #24 – 23 MAR 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BqPRAw 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<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ Notes (includes relevant text from chat) 0. Call Administration 1. Review of AI's from call #23 on March 2nd https://community.icann.org/x/3qDRAw Note to all - the latest version is named Plenary Draft 1.0 2. Update from Plenary Meeting March 10th Cheryl - very pleased with the discussion with the Plenary. Also, the slides that were used during the plenary session will be posted to the wiki. 3. Discussion, current (draft 1.3) documentation updates, readings and review. Review and discuss updates to our draft documentation - the Consolidated Draft Report after its 1st reading and Plenary discussion, see emails to our list and CCWG pre and post our recent meeting CPH. Steve: As most of us on the call were present we don't need to go into too much detail, but there was a good conversation at the plenary on March 10. For track 1, there were no big issues, but a few items were noted. Some interest to strengthen language around best practices, to change "recommend best practices" to "encourage implementation of..." No opposition to this change. Second point is to clarify that we are only talking about AC/SO accountability "within the scope of ICANN activity." Steve asked for others to point out where this language is in the current draft, and if not found language would be included in executive summary. No opposition to this change. Next was topic of Diversity and whether we should incorporate recommendations anticipated from the Diversity group of WS2. Alan - I don't think we should, as it would be redundant to other areas ICANN has already stated regarding diversity best practices. Kavouss - "is there difficulty to add diversity to the best practices?" It is taking time for the diversity group to establish this, so should we add it here? Steve - don't see difficulty, it just wasn't in our initial draft. And raises the question if we include this is it our version of diversity standards, or the other diversity group or ICANN in general (which haven't been posted yet) Alan - we don't know how such a statement of diversity best practices would necessarily be applicable to specific constituency groups. Jorge Villa (ASO): The diversity topic can be managed in a different way between SO/AC. If we include a recommendation, it must be very general recommendation Cheryl - there seems to be some rational for some reference with regards to outreach and participation, but that would vary across the constituency groups and would necessarily be a general statement, a single overall sentence and not a specific best practice. "Diversity would be a best practice within an SO/AC and may enable them reaching broader diversity dimensions." Kavouss - supports the general statement, this is consistent with similar statements made in several other areas (GAC, others) Steve - taking it under consideration to include general diversity language regarding outreach and participation. Alan - shouldn't we flag this as one of the items that we need to make sure matches up with other subgroup efforts when we pull all recommendations together? Steve - agreed and will include. Jorge Villa (ASO): I think that trying to resume diversity between SO/ACs might be a daunting task, The diversity concepts important for a group may differ from others. I think that maybe in further versions we might include something if we are completely clear of how this concept will be managed between SO/ACs Steve - agree in general, but the language as we've discussed is broad enough it shouldn't create an issue. Transparency Recommendation #4 - add appropriate reasons for an AC/SO meeting to be closed. Michael Karanicolas offered up language for 5 reasons. comments of suggestions? Alan - #4 seems insufficient. We should get some wider language from SSAC (Alan offered to follow up with SSAC) Steve - I think this language is often used. Alan - ok, if so then i don't have a problem. Christopher - appreciate their objectives but the implementation of many of their recommendations are problematic. I think the language is too specific but if this is what the group came up with then ok. Kavouss - don't think we need to add anything, it is sufficiently broad and we ask for clarification for other reasons as needed that would be appropriate. Alan Greenberg: If we use "normally" or some such wording, I have no problem with the list. Cheryl - what we can do is provide this back to the plenary and emphasize that this is an example list rather than an exclusive list. Transparency Recc. #5 both address minutes of meetings and we should be more consistent. Cheryl - I think we should bring the language from both recommendations together so they can be more consistent. But we should avoid wordsmithing the language on the call. Steve - inconsistency is meetings be available to members or available to all (published). Alan - in transparency recommendation it refers to minutes, but many calls don't have "minutes" and we might want to use more general language (meeting notes). Closed sessions are rare in ALAC but in the event they occur we keep no records. Steve - in the BC, closed meetings are then closed to members. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Minutes / Notes and any recordings as the 'term' where Minutes is used now perhaps Kavouss - two words here are carefully used - "published" and "minutes." Language more commonly used now are "made available" and/or "posted" and "notes" instead of "minutes" Steve - we need to come back to this one later, as we need to move on to the other points of input. NOTE - in the chat the following language was offered up: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Participation Recc 4 : For any meetings, be they closed to members only or open to anyone, members have to be able to access all records of the meeting, subject to exceptions for confidentiality matters. Transparency Recc 5: Notes, Minutes or Records for all membership meetings should be made publically available. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Does that language work for the Finn Peterson point re consistency? Next topic is regarding continued focus on SOAC accountability after the CCWG concludes. We could amend our report to recommend that future ATRTs examine SO/AC accountability. But this would increase that review team's efforts. Alan - I think we could add this as an option within ATRT to review best practices for SOACs, but to charge them with reviewing SOAC accountability is too far, as this is something that the individual org reviews addresses. Steve - we can also suggest to Plenary that we are recommending one bylaws change at Sec 4.6 b. Next topic is Track 2: Mutual Accountability Roundtable. Steve - There was significant concern about our first reading recommendation. Many other ideas were offered by members of the plenary. One idea brought forth would be to, prior to each AGM, ask the chairs of AC/SOs whether they want to hold a roundtable. Alan - two different groups are referenced here - SO/AC chairs and then SO/AC/Group chairs, which is a much larger group. But I support the language. Steve - before we agree to this suggestion, I asked several leaders of GNSO constituencies, and stakeholder groups and they were firmly against this idea. Alan - I’m good with the language we have, and having it optional is good because as i stated in Copenhagen it is a good idea but I don't think ICANN isn't ready for it. Kavouss - I think this is a good idea, and being optional is good. But I think it should be open to everyone, not just these people noted in the language. Cheryl - one last point - are we ok on IRP latest comment from Avri to NOT include the complaints officer in the document language. Next steps are to incorporate these changes and move forward with a next Plenary draft for the March 29th call. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule none currently listed for April onwards. To be discussed. Master Schedule is here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… Next step is to reach out to the broader group regarding timing of future calls. 5. AOB and review of any AI's. None

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #16 - 23 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #16 on 23 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/taDRAw A copy of the action items and 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 [cid:image001.png@01D2A3F0.2D39B1C0] Action Items: · DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. · DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. · DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments. Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 1. Recap of last meeting David McAuley - No changes to SOI. Note regarding Reg Levy re mentoring. Due date for report on public consultation - since we will not make 29 March - proposing 29 May - comments? (none). New date is 29 May. SOAC nominating candidates for the panel - the IOT would be available to help them and we need this on our radar and we have to get to it sooner rather than later. Will initiate a discussion on the list. Decision – New date for posting report on public consultation will be 29 May 2017. Action Item – DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. Kavouss Arasteh - nominating panel members as per the Bylaws? David McAuley - correct. ICANN will release an Expression of Interest for panel members. Respondents will be split into two buckets of very qualified and others. Kavouss Arasteh - qualifications should include valid experience and qualifications in IRP. Hope ICANN will take this into account in rating applicants. Samantha Eisner - We are finalizing the EoI which we will validate with the IOT. To KA's point we are drafting to the specifications in the Bylaws and then will vet the applicants. SOAC's can add qualifications for the applications which could include the experiences mentioned by KA. Hope to have EoI to this group next week. 2. How start of time is calculated Malcolm Hutty - (presenting slides). Anyone on this call wishing to apply a moratorium on this? (none) David McAuley - would oppose this. Malcolm Hutty - the moratorium option should be set aside as there is no support for this (even if I found it an acceptable way forward). Samantha Eisner: Can we see what is on the "how long is allowed" before we conclude on this page? Kavouss Arasteh - Clarification of "not later than the latest" needs clarification. Malcolm Hutty - will fix, am certain the lawyers will come up with some appropriate wording, this is just concepts language. Sam Eisner - with this proposal are we removing any option for an absolute time limit? Malcolm Hutty - re fixed date - our legal counsel advised against this. Sam Eisner - could someone make a claim 5 years after? Malcolm Hutty - Highly unlikely 5 years would be used. Becky Burr: What do we mean by an "act" - Becky Burr: I think ICANN could adopt a policy that did not affect someone for 5 years Samantha Eisner: act could be implementing of a policy, or other acts as well Samantha Eisner: it doesn't have to be just the adoption Kavouss Arasteh - do not understand the difference between options 1 and 2. Malcolm Hutty - KA may be correct as there may be a tautology between these two. but the objective is to approve the concept and let the lawyers clean this up. Greg Shatan - We need both 1 and 2. If you have a house in the woods and it burns down on July 1st but you only go on August 1st so point 1 is July 1st, 2 is August 1st - and if you never go there - there should be a limit as to when you should of been aware (have a neighbour check on your house at least every six months). this type of language is standard legal language. We should also be clear on what we are talking about. Sam Eisner - 1 and 2 make sense and could be refined. As to ultimate repose we have a responsibility in that the IRP needs to create an environment of certainty and therefore this would argue for the need of repose. Kavouss Arasteh 2: We need to write a text which is understandable by everybody Malcolm Hutty - there seems to be consensus to the approach which needs to be refined by lawyers. SE is still bringing up repose - however our independent counsel has advised against this and there have been no public comments which support repose - quite the contrary. Samantha Eisner: I'm not clear of where that piece of advice from Sidely comes from Samantha Eisner: can you please re-circulate that to the group? Greg Shatan: I would change "no later than" to "on or before" -- avoides the "double later" Samantha Eisner: From what we can find on Sidley's advice, they noted that a one-year bar on claims could stand, and they provided other advice on the "facial invalidity" issue that we are no longer discussing Kavouss Arasteh - We need some sort of preamble for 1 and 2. also do not want to go to more than 90 days. Greg Shatan: 45 days is about enough time for the Empowered Community to order breakfast.... Greg Shatan: If it works for the EC, 120 works for me. Samantha Eisner: Greg, once there's a petition started, then there's appx a 60 day time to get from petition to community forum Kavouss Arasteh – If not other objections I can support 120 days. Malcolm Hutty - consensus of 120 days - no objections. Decision – 120 days accepted as a substitute for the 45 days proposed USP. Dave McAuley - the Timing issue should now move to the list. would like to use the remainder of the time to begin the discussion of Joinder (presentation of slides). Action Item – DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. Sam Eisner - we need to remember what we are writing rules about - this is about seeing if the Bylaws have been broken - this is not about re-litigating decisions that are in line with the Bylaws. Malcolm Hutty: In my experience, permission for joinder or intervention is held by the court, not by the clerk, so I would agree with granting it in this case to the IRP panel, not the PO David McAuley - will write to the list about moving forward with analysing the remaining comments. Adjourned. Action Item – DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments. Decisions: · New date for posting report on public consultation will be 29 May 2017. · 120 days accepted as a substitute for the 45 days proposed USP. Action Items: · DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. · DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. · DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments.

1 0

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including: Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN. For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…” Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented. Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs. Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices. We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1 Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

1 0