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.