Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #9 – 30 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-Y7DAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items Action Item - please update slide accordingly. Action Item - We will have a call of expressions of interest for our participation in this groups. Notes Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behaviour Leon Sanchez: Updates to SOIs (none). 2. Administration Leon Sanchez: IRP-IOT Public Comment period open. No Comments. Presentation of WS2 timeline. Sebastien Bachollet: Ombudsman - the review of the Ombudsman office will cause us to be late - so this is a request to move to track 1. Leon Sanchez: Action Item - please update slide accordingly. Kavouss Arasteh: changing of tracks should be decided by the plenary. Leon Sanchez: KA this is what we are doing here. this being said SB’s request seems to be reasonable. Alan Greenberg: If we refuse to honour change request from subgroups, what punishment do we extract if they then do not deliver? Greg Shatan: The original choice was made by the subgroup, so I think changes should be up to the subgroup as well. Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: Good point, Alan. We are volunteers. Alan Greenberg: Perhaps remove rapporteur and replace with people who refuse to agree to their request. Avri Doria: how did track 2 become shorter time frame than track 1? Alan Greenberg: Track 2 allocation was simply those groups who hoped to deliver quickly. Reality has a way of changing our perceptions. Greg Shatan: @Avri, I think it always was, or there's a numbering issue. I can assure you that the Juris SG was always on the long track. Mathieu Weill: KA co-chairs will be monitoring this closely. Leon Sanchez: Travel assistance presentation for ICANN58 3. Legal Committee Leon Sanchez: Replacement of Athina Fragkouli by Michael Abejuela. Also we have not had any response from ICANN legal to the questions we have forwarded. Sebastien Bachollet: when the LC makes a decision of who to send it to should it not come back to the sub-group. Leon Sanchez: We will receive input and then share that response and then decide if we need further input. 4. Follow up on Action Items from ICANN 57 Hyderabad Thomas Rickert: Response to SC sent. Letter to SOAC chairs on ATRT3 has been drafted and will be sent in the next few days. Would ask the members to track this in their respective SOACs. SOAC accountability sub-group request Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Have not received any responses yet but we are being updated on the progress regarding this in various SOACs. As such it would seem that we will be receiving replies. Thomas Rickert: the GAC is considering its response and hope to submit for the end of next week. Any question regarding this? Onto Transparency. Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: ccNSO contribution also being considered by council now Chris Wilson: the intention is to provide a revised draft for next week. Thomas Rickert: Re discussions with Goran Marby. Concern regarding the complaints officer reporting to legal, the name complaints officer, the relationship to the Ombudsman, the use of the word Organization as well as participation in the 5 internal staff groups. Action Item - We will have a call of expressions of interest for our participation in this groups. Jordan Carter: what would the commitment be to participate? Thomas Rickert: We will provide that information with the request for an expression of interest. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): could you circulate this info (Thomas just explained) on list? Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: Use of the word Organization - many feel it is, and has always been, all of ICANN including the community - and as such disagree with shifting the use to only mean staff (as opposed to calling staff Staff). Concern with the Complaints Officer reporting to ICANN legal. Concern with calling it the Complaints Officer, several alternate suggestions including Issues Office etc.5 internal groups - can the CCWG participate? 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups Mathieu Weill: will start with SOAC Acct. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Presentation of update. Have requested to move delivery to track 1. Mathieu Weill: Niels ten Oever could not attend today - he has reported great progress in Hyderabad and a document is being discussed which we hope will be sent to the plenary for consideration. Ed Morris: Presentation of slides. David McAuley: It may be good to call this a negotiation - but what the CEP group could do is add some formality around it - maybe using the IRP secretariat. Sebastien Bachollet: Why do this twice for the same topic? Alan Greenberg: Not designing process for the sake of process - we have been asked to do this - we probably need case studies to understand this properly. David McAuley (RySG): I think input from Sam or Amy Stathos on prior experience would be helpful Greg Shatan: Mediator is a good idea at this point. DM recognizes we may need to make changes to the Bylaws if we go this way. A mediator would level the playing field. Berry Cobb: For the CEP topic, this is also being discussed (briefly at this stage) within the Subsequent Rnds PDP. I suspect further deliberations will continue at least as to how the process worked or could be improved as it relates to the 2012 round. The WS2-CEP team may want to keep a tab on any of those discussions. Avri Doria: couldn't the form of the mediation be open to the mediator based on their experience and what they see facing them? if we had mediation that is. Robin Gross [GNSO-NCSG]: One of the main problems of the CEP is the lack of meaningful written rules about the process Avri Doria: I accept that the bylaws are not cut in stone and could be changed is necessary. judging whether it is necessary or not remains a question. Greg Shatan: I'd be open to flexibility and exercise of judgment of the mediator (after all, a mediation is only as good as the judgment of the mediator) but the overall concept is to facilitate the negotiation. Mathieu Weill: EM you have been given a number of suggestions. AG's suggestion is good. Would suggest you come back to the plenary with a suggestion so we can discuss this. Next question EM? Ed Morris: IRP encourages conciliation discussion - is it the same as CEP. David McAuley: Sensible Bylaw and we will deal with it in the IRP-IOT. Mathieu Weill: we have cleared up the second question and the IOT will be handling the conciliation aspect. Kavouss Arasteh: Jurisdiction - after 11 meetings we are nowhere. We discuss things and then put them aside and go to other things. Main issue is immunity - there are 2 meanings - uncertain which one we are talking about. Greg Shatan: Disagree with the characterization of the group - do agree we are having difficulties agreeing on what we should be doing. Kavouss Arasteh 3: Greg, yes, we agree to disagree .Then we will get no where Avri Doria: There is the work some agreed to do, and there is the work that is called for in the Bylaws and the Recommendations. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: I don't agree that the work to put together a questionnaire has been complicated. We just need to agree on the formulation of a third additional question and that is it. Greg Shatan: We have not yet agreed that a third question will go out. Edward Morris: Thanks Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see it as progress yes Pedro David McAuley: I get frustrated with Jurisdiction work but this is just a reflection of how difficult the work is and Greg is doing good work leading the group. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Indeed David kinda why it is called "building consensus" it is actual Work1 Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: @Greg: there was considerable support for it and I don't see why the coRapporteurs do not recognize it. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Just lost connection... but to sum my comment up: all are invited to contribute to the two docs we are working on. And we have to find agreement on the three questions to be sent out to stakeholders worldwide on their experiences with ICANN jurisdiction Greg Shatan: There was both support and opposition. We'll need to work it out. David McAuley (RySG): +1 Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yup Kavouss Arasteh: disagree with how questions were drafted. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let' work on the two docs with specific ideas and wording. And let's be flexible on the questions being drafted - after all we are asking for input from the wider community Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Jorge Philip Corwin: Optimism is the triumph of hope over experience. Mathieu Weill: I am following the work of this work very closely. There is progress that is being made although it is slow. We need to trust the process. Let us work on finding areas of agreement and we can build on this. We look forward to an update from the group on the next plenary. Moving to AOB now. 6. AOB Nathalie Vergonelle: update on publication of dashboard - still waiting for input from 4 groups. Mathieu Weill: We have cancelled the call the call next week. Adjourned. Documents · CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-Slides<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63147773/CCWG-Accountabilit...> · CEP Slides<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63147773/ceprush.pdf?versio...>