- Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 22 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #23 – 22 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/O6vRAw 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@01D2A3BB.DE89CB70] Action Items: * GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. * GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. * GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire. Notes (Including relevant parts of chat): 16 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan - Changes to SOIs? (none). Audio Only? (none) 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - No objections 3. Administration 3.1 Questions to ICANN Legal – Status Greg Shatan - ICANN Legal has acknowledged reception but has not provided the requested estimate yet (understandable vs ICANN58). If no news by Monday next week will follow up with them. Action item – GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. 3.2 Hypotheticals document and “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Clarify that active work is suspended until ICANN Legal responds to the questions and the litigation review is complete, but the documents are still open for contributions. Greg Shatan - Restating this for any that were not on the last call. 4. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 4.1 Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - Some new people have signed up. David McAuley: I will do two more cases - probably next week 4.2 Review of Summaries 4.2.1 Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.2 State of Arizona vs NTIA V2 - MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.3 Ben Haim v. Iran…. – MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.4 DCA v. ICANN - DM (document) David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). Jurisdiction not a significant part of this case. 4.2.5 DCA V. ICANN – Appellate Court - DM (document) David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). 9th circuit for this case. Jurisdiction probably not a major consideration in this case. Important to note that an IRP was active in the middle of these cases. avri doria: diversity jurisdiction: how does that work? i guess i can go look it up. Greg Shatan: I'll ask David to expand a bit on the diversity issue. avri doria: ie. how do multiple jurisdiction affect things in Federal cases? is that a significant thing in itself? Greg Shatan - DM could you explain the Diversity Jurisdiction court issue. David McAuley - by statute federal courts can hear state cases where the parties are different jurisdiction. The entry of ZACR ended perfect diversity Greg Shatan: Avri, the "diverse" citizenship of the parties is the basis of diversity jurisdiction. avri doria: is the litigant choice limited to US courts? avri doria: what kind of claims? being subject to a different set of laws? if i am the only one confused by the implications and what is allowed as a claim, i will go study up. avri doria: i think the degree to which there is flexibility on the claims an laws used may be a signification juridical factor in our work. thanks for the education. avri doria: Could they have gone, e.g., a court in Kenya to litigate? Kavouss Arasteh - All these courts in the US make this confusing for some of us. Would be appreciated if we could get a description how the system works. Second no such presentation for other cases. Have looked at some of these cases it seems that have been overly simplified. Greg Shatan - re KA questions we will present a summary for each case. As to over simplification we are focusing on jurisdiction. As to the first question a simple version there are 2 parallel systems Federal and State but both are ruled by the same laws. The Federal system has 3 levels the highest one being the US supreme court. Kavouss Arasteh: Greg, thanks,may you please provide a tutorial description of the legal jurisdiction process in USA David McAuley - re diversity jurisdiction for federal courts - in many cases they still apply state law. Greg Shatan - re AD question vs bringing case in Kenya - maybe -depends on many considerations. David McAuley: now that ICANN has an office in Kenya I think the answer would be yes - as of the date that office opened Becky Burr: agree with David, but isn't there an argument that the harm occurs in Kenya? David McAuley: fair point Becky David McAuley: At bottom, in the DCA cases I don't think jurisdiction is a paramount issue David McAuley: in fact the case is still ongoing in Cal. state court Kavouss Arasteh: Still the hierarchy of state court, Appeal court ,which usually at the same state , and when federal courts are called for and when supreme court would be involved are not clear Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we might need to look into forum shopping strategies employed regularly - in order to understand what jurisdictions are preferred by whom - depending on what is what your objectives are (an injunction in a specific territory; damages; blocking a decision... etc) Kavouss Arasteh: The relation between three layers in State courts, on the one hand, and federal court on the other hand and finally the role of supreme courts need to be further elaborated and documented Greg Shatan - re: KA will post some information on this. Action Item – GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. avri doria: what i think is important to this group is the flexibility allowed in the current jurisdiction. be interesting to see if this is leveraged in any of the other cases. Kavouss Arasteh - why two entries for DCA. David McAuley 2: Greg gave right reason - but it was ICANN's listing of litigation is where the split occurred. 5. Questionnaire Update 5.1 Review and Evaluation Team - Update Greg Shatan - ICANN 58 overtook the evaluation team and we will have to get this started. Action Item – GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire. 5.1.1 Team is responsible for updating the subgroup on new responses and their status at each meeting, as well as elaborating an evaluation framework for responses, for approval by the sub-group, based on the responses received. 5.1.2 Composition of the review team Greg Shatan - still looking volunteers if you have not done so yet. Erich Schweighofer: I will help in the questionnaire review. Tatiana Tropina: Greg, I already volunteered to help with the questionnaire review, can confirm again that I will help 5.1.3 Review Team – Next steps. 5.2 Status of current responses Greg Shatan - no new responses since February 22nd - this is not atypical. any questions? (none). Remind everyone should publicize it to their lists. 6. AOB (none). 7. Adjourn Decisions (none) Action Items: · GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. · GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. · GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 21 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 22, 2017

March 22, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #23 here; https://community.icann.org/x/M6vRAw 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@01D2A315.E70FD1A0] Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 12 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - No apologies, no audio only, no update to SOIs. Short update on ICANN58 - we are under some time constraint. There was a meeting facilitated by the GAC WG on HR where Anita Ramastray was present offered UN support for the work for the sub-group after a cursory presentation of the Ruggie principles. Propose we ask AR and the UN wg on business and HR to give their feed back as part of the public consultation on our report (no objections) - will inform them of this. Any updates to agenda? (none). David McAuley: agreed to that approach 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team Niels ten Oever - Ask the drafting team to walk us through the most recent version. Anne Aikman-Scalese - thank you for including my minority positions. description of meetings of the drafting team meetings in Copenhagen. David McAuley: why not parse them out by paragraph Tatiana Tropina: We changed the first para as well - in accordance with the comments from the previous call Niels ten Oever: Maybe we should start with reading out the first para (review of draft document - Consideration - new para 1) Greg Shatan - If and where we should put in something about NO CHERRY PICKING. It may make sense to put it in this para. Niels ten Oever - some text in Annex 6 of WS1 report seems to fit the bill. the last part of this could meet the requirements? "The CCWG-Accountability also disagreed with any attempt to single out any specific Human Right (such as “freedom of expression”) in the proposed draft Bylaw text on the basis that Human Rights cannot be selectively mentioned, emphasized, or applied since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Niels ten Oever: Human Rights cannot be selectively mentioned, emphasized, or applied since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Paul Twomey: Does the ICANN can choose approach leave it open to litigators saying you failed because you did not choose the instrument that I prefer? I don't have a solution for this I am afraid - should we ask the lawyers? Niels ten Oever - do not think this is an issue by have no issue asking the lawyers. David McAuley - tend to agree with PT. The text quoted by NTO have a problem with the word APPLIED. Also the obligation to respect is limited to those Internationally Recognized and per applicable law. matthew shears: agree with David on the above. One could of course just state that "Human Rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Kavouss Arasteh - Too many proposed modifications need to be included before we can consider this as a first reading. Need a new draft if we are doing this. kavouss arasteh: pls provide concrete changes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): re Kavouss comment I believe it will be valuable to the group to reach a true full consensus. If not, we have to point out a lack of consensus and address the disagreed positions. kavouss arasteh: You started that on sunday ...consensus was reached?? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): IN this regard, I have personal experience (and so does Avri) working to full consensus on GNSO SCI (when it existed.) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Anne +++ kavouss arasteh: Greg, pls provide concrete proposal rather than describing the proposal Niels ten Oever: +1 but perhaps lets discuss this when we get to that part of the text? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Kavouss - no I did not start this on Sunday. NOt at all. kavouss arasteh: Niels ,no. of intervention must be restricted not more than two Greg Shatan - A few thoughts vs PT comment - Applicable Law thing is very helpful here - if something goes beyond applicable law its going beyond the remit of the Bylaw. So not too worried about PT question. On cherry picking those instruments that fall within the Bylaw we cannot separate the elements in that instrument vs saying certain instruments apply or not. (reading second para of Considerations) Paul Twomey - edits proposed will be typed in chat. Paul Twomey: Change to "{However, with regards to the implementation of the Core Value, at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value." Kavouss Arasteh - all proposals for change should be type in chat. Mathew Shears - As a member of the drafting team this discussion is useful. Proposed edits. Niels ten Oever: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8… Paul Twomey: I am concerned that the community does not draw the conclusion that we are signalling that the how guiding principles is potentially applicable - this I would think is a major mistake Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Sorry I did not understand the proposed edit by Matthew. Paul Twomey: sorry I mean the whole guiding principles Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I for one am finding these brief explanations of both concerns with and rationale for the proposed text useful at this polishing stage, as well as the proposed edits to the text being made to chat or of course GDoc Paul Twomey - Worried that we would say that the Principles as a whole could be used. Would prefer we state that certain aspects of the principles. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): this is good refinement IMO David McAuley: I agree w/Paul avri doria: caveat ++ avri doria: why not. it is all the same, but sounds safer. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): correct @Paul "aspects" are good guidance avri doria: as it is something to be considered later in the light of circumstances at the time, indefiniate caveats really netierh add nor substract anything. avri doria: i am saying it doesn't matter at all. Anne Aikman-Scalese - comments from AD and SLO - importance to keep ASPECTS in the draft - and do not understand MS's proposal. Kavouss Arasteh - difficult to follow the proposals. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Avri - I think I misread your comment. matthew shears: I retract my proposed edit - apologies Niels ten Oever: "However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value" Avri Doria - Like PT's proposal - good sentence. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Re AAS point - I always like ASPECTS and I have been conssistent on this. Agree with AD and it is a good sentence. Think we are getting there. matthew shears: do we need the "at least"!?? Tatiana Tropina: now we don't Greg Shatan: We should take out the "at least" David McAuley: agree w Greg to take out 'at least' Niels ten Oever: If we say 'at least' then we're saying it can never be all Niels ten Oever: that would be in contention with the later sentence in which we say we don't analyze all Niels ten Oever: sorry, if we remove 'at least' David McAuley: I also agree that using adobe while live-drafting in GDoc is very hard to keep pace with. Greg Shatan: We should make sure to bring the language back in to the Chat as Niels has done. Paul Twomey: I could live with deleting at least But will leave to others Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Cheryl and David Niels ten Oever: However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. Paul Twomey - GS, TT and MS are correct regarding AT LEAST. Greg Shatan - the AT LEAST causes waffling and could be considered and endorsement of the whole which would be beyond our consensus - Niels ten Oever: so it is a qualifying statement Niels ten Oever: That is a good point matthew shears: could does not qualify - it might it might not - which is appropriate Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that is a risk IMO @Tatiana as Paul notes it could be read to indicate a minimum requirement up to 100% ( shudder from me) Niels ten Oever - have removed AT LEAST since this seems to be the consensus. Niels ten Oever: However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. David McAuley: we need a medium Niels, thank you. Kavouss Arasteh - agree with removing AT LEAST. (last part of second paragraph of Consideration - as proposed by AAS). Anne Aikman-Scalese - comment made in the spirit of good clear governance. Request for Reconsideration and IRP will be avaialble for the community - this is good - but when considering policies there should be less severe mechanisms which would be less expensive but could provide resolution.So since the more formal mechanisms have been mentionned we should make efforts to encourage alternate mechanisms. Kavouss Arasteh - If this is a CONSIDERATION then we should not use MUST. Niels ten Oever 2: These bodies must also consider Human Rights grievance procedures to be implemented such as Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process as well as any less formal steps to be taken prior to the invoking of either of these more formal procedures. David McAuley: thanks Niels Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Readily agree to replace "must" with "need" . Good suggestions David McAuley - support both AAS and KA points - this would make sense. Greg Shatan - Laudable goal - this is not the time, place or group to do this. As such this sentence should be removed. This could be a rabbit hole avri doria: remember to cross talk this to the ombudsman group if we go this way. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes essential if we do decide @Avri Tatiana Tropina: I am not comfortable with the words "must" and I agree with Greg. David McAuley: I would not object to removal matthew shears: I agree with Greg - I am uncomfortable for the same reasons David McAuley: also did not understand "more formal procedures" Erich Schweighofer: Agree with Greg. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Niels ten Oever - seems there is support to remove this text. I will re-circulate a new draft this week. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #18 | 20 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 21, 2017

March 21, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #18 – 20 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sbHRAw 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@01D2A265.68BB07D0] Action Items: § Lars Hoffmann to provide draft questionnaire for sub-group review later this week. § Lars Hoffman to distribute final list of interviewees to sub-group when it becomes available. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 12 Participants on call including evaluator. 1. Roll Call / Apologies – Welcome Sebastien Bachollet - (review of agenda, no objections or additions) 2. Participation & Dashboard Sebastien Bachollet - (review of participation and dashboard entry). 3. External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office a. Feedback from CPH ICANN58 by Cameron Ralph LLC Debra Russel - Time in Copenhagen was very valuable. Met with 15 interviewees with significant variation in views. Good that some had used Ombuds office. Also, spent time with current Ombudsman. Have yet to talk with ICANN Legal and the previous Ombudsman and this should be arranged shortly. Next stage will be a survey to the community - working on producing this now. Also, starting to produce our thoughts so far. Lars Hoffmann - Will be talking with the evaluator later this week and will complete the list which we will share with this group. As to the questionnaire we are working with the evaluator and would ask everyone here to distribute to your contacts as this is most effective. Asha Hemrajani - Good DR to speak with the previous Ombudsman. Also, recommend reading Frank Fowley's PhD thesis and also talk with him. avri doria: i do not recommend putting all that much credence in Dr. Fowlie himself, but the thesis is good. Asha Hemrajani: @Avri I don't know him at all but yes the thesis is definitely worth a read. avri doria: I knew him well and would never have brought an issue to him. avri doria: he became quite partisan and showed one of the liabilities of an ombudsman becoming part of the community he served Herb Waye Ombuds: here is the document if anyone is interested Herb Waye Ombuds: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/blueprint-for-evaluation-of-an-… b. Overview of which Community members the Independent Assessors spoke to Sebastien Bachollet - (review of list per presentation). Lars Hoffmann - Once we have the list will review to see we have good representation. c. Gather feedback from the Subteam on who should still be reached out d. Discuss timeline for survey, and other mile stones Lars Hoffmann - The timeline still seems to be holding. Understand WS2 may be extended - if this is the case we should review the impact of this with this group. e. Draft survey on Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC? Lars Hoffmann - Hope to have a draft to this group mid late this week and hope to publish it early next week. Have reached out to translation and will produce it in French and Spanish also - and will also translate any freeform responses for evaluators maintaining confidentiality. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thanks Lars Asha Hemrajani: Makes sense Lars Asha Hemrajani - dates for survey? Lars Hoffmann - not yet released but there are some constraints so not comfortable providing a date yet. would be useful knowing when the sub-group can approve it. Sebastien Bachollet - we would hope to approve it at the next meeting (27th) at the latest. 4. ICANN Complaints Office Sebastien Bachollet - just ensuring we are all on the same regarding this - even those who have not travelled to Copenhagen - no questions. 5. Next meeting a. #19 Monday 27 March 2017 1300UTC 6. AOB Herb Waye - At a later meeting would like to talk about the new role I have taken on as the anti-harassment officer. Sebbatien Bachollet - Agree - still looking for the Board resolutions from Copenhagen. We will need to have a discussion on this. avri doria: has the final harassment policy been published yet? Sebastien Bachollet - good question - nothing seems to be published yet. avri doria: was fascinating to watch the board approve it though no one had seen the final product. do not even know if any comments were taken on board and were not able to comment in the forum. very strange. Asha Hemrajani: Yes the public comments were taken into account. Avri Doria - Uncertain how relevant it is to our work. Board Approval was a Strange Event. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Avri Asha Hemrajani: Comments from the public comment period I meant. avri doria: Asha, hard for us to judge. Asha Hemrajani: @Avri, understand your point. Will check & revert. Herb Waye Ombuds: I don't recall it coming up at the Public Forums Asha if that is what you meant Asha Hemrajani: @Herb, no that is not what I meant. avri doria: Herb, hope you have a copy. Herb Waye Ombuds: I have a draft, I did not compare it with the final product but I will Asha Hemrajani: @Avri we also had a public board session on Saturday to discuss the resolution. That recording should already have been made available already Sebastien Bachollet - please provide input vs overlaps with other WS2 sub-groups. Adjourned. Decisions – none

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20170329 13:00 UTC - Reminder
by Bernard Turcotte March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

All, This is simply a reminder that the next CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary will be held Wednesday 29 March 2017 13:00UTC. All sub-groups wishing to present documents for consideration by the plenary at this meeting should forward them to the list no later than Wednesday 22 March 23:59UTC. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

TR: ATRT-3 scope - views from the GAC
by Mathieu Weill March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

Dear Colleagues Please find below for your information a response from the GAC Chair regarding the scope of ATRT3. Best Mathieu From: Olof Nordling Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 5:01 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org> Cc: gac-leadership(a)icann.org Subject: ATRT-3 scope - views from the GAC Please note and share the following message from the GAC Chair: Dear Larissa, Noting that the ATRT-3, once established, will have the option to modify the scope of the review, the GAC finds it of doubtful value to formally limit the scope of the ATRT-3 prior to its formation. The GAC also notes that work potentially envisaged by the ATRT-3 may overlap with activities in Work Stream 2 of the CCWG-Accountability. As a consequence, and to ensure efficiency, the GAC finds it appropriate for the ATRT-3 to consider such potential overlap situations when reviewing the scope and in planning its activities. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ----------------------------------- pp/ Olof

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelApplications-ICANN59 Approved Applications
by Bernard Turcotte March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

All, The CCWG-Accountability travel funding program for ICANN 59 Johannesburg closed Sunday 19 March 2017 23:59 UTC. The Co-Chairs have considered the applications and have approved all valid applications. The approved applicants are: - Alan Greenberg - Avri Doria - Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Ed Morris - Finn Petersen - Fiona Asonga - Greg Shatan - Izume Okutani - Kavouss Arasteh - Mathieu Weill - Michael Karanicolas - Olga Cavalli - Sebastien Bachollet - Thomas Rickert - Tijani Ben Jemaa This information will now posted to the CCWG-Accountability Wiki and will also be communicated to ICANN Travel who will follow its standard process to make arrangements for these participants. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

WS2 and Ombuds, Compaints,... Offices
by Sebastien Bachollet March 16, 2017

March 16, 2017

Dear Colleagues, In different WS2 Subgroups new processes or functionalities and/or new possible problems and/or complains are arising from the work. Along with those issues the question of independence (from Staff, from Board, from part of the community…) was also discussed. The evolution of role of the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO) is at the center of the IOO Subgroup. The new Complaints Office role is also discussed in various subgroups. How to best organize the « complaints » OfficeS need to be work out? It is the reason I send you the document attached. Your comments are welcome. If you consider the topic useful, we may need to schedule some time to discuss that during our F2F meeting in Copenhagen. Please find it attached in a doc format and in a PDF format. Do we ned a Google doc? Thanks for your consideration and your help. All the best Sébastien Bachollet For ICANN lists sebicann(a)bachollet.fr

5 6

ICANN58 opening speech
by Thomas Rickert March 16, 2017

March 16, 2017

Dear all, Finn kindly sent the full text of Minister for Culture Ms. Mette Bock's speech to me and I thought you would find her statements of support not only interesting, but also encouraging and energizing. She starts discussing the transition and accountability as of page 9 and the diversity sub-team will be pleased that she highlights the importance of the work on diversity on p 12/13. Keep up the good work, team! All the best and for those who are at ICANN58, safe travels! Best, Thomas

1 0

Co-Chairs Statement from CCWG-Accountability Meeting in Copenhagen
by Hillary Jett March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/co-chairs-statement-from-ccwg-accountabilit… Co-Chairs Statement from CCWG-Accountability Meeting in Copenhagen On 10 March 2017, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) held a full day face-to-face meeting prior to ICANN58 in Copenhagen, Denmark. 90 members and participants attended in-person, and many others joined remotely using the virtual meeting room, to further discussions on Work Stream 2 (WS2). The CCWG-Accountability used the meeting to receive updates from its sub-groups and inform the ICANN community about the status of its work. The CCWG-Accountability also made substantive progress in the following areas: · SO/AC accountability: The CCWG-Accountability completed a successful first reading of the draft recommendations of the Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) Accountability sub-group<https://community.icann.org/x/lBWOAw>. · Staff accountability: The CCWG-Accountability worked with the Staff Accountability sub-group<https://community.icann.org/x/mhWOAw> to define the scope and expectations for the sub-group’s recommendations. · Finalizing sub-group recommendations: The CCWG-Accountability agreed to put each sub-group report out for public comment and gain approval by the full CCWG-Accountability before finalization. The group also agreed to put the total package of finalized sub-group reports out for public comment to identify any inconsistencies between the various recommendations. · Chartering Organization approval: The CCWG-Accountability suggested that Chartering Organizations approve the finalized sub-group reports in small chunks, rather than all at once. This will help the Chartering Organizations with document management and not result in a heavy impact on each SO or ACs normal operations. · Timing: The CCWG-Accountability concluded that, despite progress made by each of the sub-groups, the CCWG-Accountability will not complete its final recommendations by the end of the fiscal year 2017. A discussion on carrying forward resources to the next fiscal year has been initiated with ICANN, however the CCWG-Accountability expects to stay within the initially proposed budget. The CCWG-Accountability was pleased to have Göran Marby, Steve Crocker and George Sadowsky in attendance for the meeting. Their participation led to a discussion on the role of the ICANN CEO, staff and community, and how to increase the accountability and transparency of their collaboration. The group agreed to establish a pilot project on these topics with the Staff Accountability sub-group with the objective of determining if improvements can be made to some of the systemic issues identified by the sub-group. The CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs recognize the outstanding dedication of its volunteers, and express gratitude to ICANN staff for their diligent and skilled support. For more information on the CCWG-Accountability, or to view meeting archives and draft documents, please refer to the group’s dedicated wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountabili…> page. CCWG-Accountability WS2 is an open group. Anyone interested in the work of the CCWG-Accountability can join as a participant or observer. For more information about how to join the CCWG-Accountability, please send an email to acct-staff [at] icann.org. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Thomas Rickert, León Sánchez, Mathieu Weill

1 0

[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN59-TravelFunding-Applications
by Bernard Turcotte March 13, 2017

March 13, 2017

All, Simply a reminder that applications for travel funding close at 23:59 UTC on Sunday 19 March or in 6 days from now. Details can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support+ICANN59 Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0