Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP3 Meeting #3 - 10 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783270 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC accountability. ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to create a google doc. ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address diversity issue. Notes Review of Open Action Items All action items are complete. More volunteers are needed for staff accountability group. ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer. SO/AC Accountability Draft Proposal It explains scope of our work. It closes by suggesting 4 actions that should be taken into account when the CCWG builds its next proposal: - Amend current draft and include commitment to have each SO/AC perform a complete review of existing mechanisms as part of WS2 to be implemented after transition; - Include evaluation of proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" as part of WS2; 3 Establish a commitment to carry a detailed working plan on enhancing SO/Accountability as part of WS2; 4 Clarify that IRP should be applicable to SO/AC activities. Feedback: - Would there also be a review - in terms of documentation - of SO/AC rules and procedures? Would that be part of the review that will be undertaken? Mathieu circulated something that had provisions about SO/ACs - why was that not included? --> Intent is to have this draft refined. ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC accountability. --> Staff included this set of documents in the reading list. ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules. - There are nested regulations that will show rules are in place but it won't necessarily show that rules are being followed or that we are accountable to community. To what extent do we want to claim that SO/Acs embody a real subset that maps to community outside? ---> Most of references that we find in ATRT recommendations are nested rules that should apply to staff. We need to be clearer as to which rules and how they are applicable to each SO/AC. - We all have a consistent set of rules. At the moment, because of relationship of SO/ACs, there is not only broader accountability, there is also a cycle of Board reviews. We have to include review cycle as part of it. The effectiveness of review cycle depends on model we have. IRP is currently not applicable: we need more than a clarification: we need retesting of IRP. Is there an escalation procedure at the moment to get to IRP i.e. reconsideration etc? Is it appropriate for workload etc? Ombudmsan has done a lot of work in arbitrary issues: is that an ingredient as well? ---> Avri's help on how to address questions and to build them into document would be welcome. While ombudsman's role is to mediate between different people, unsure how could interpret that his role as an accountability mechanism. we would need to refine or enhance role with regards to this type of mediation. - Another resource that could be added would be organizational reviews as they touch on accountability of organization. For instance Westlake review of GNSO. Similar reviews that will be conducted will be an essential part of the picture. - Ombudsman is a large part of this. Although he does mediation, its formal rule has to do with fairness and exercising rules fairly, evenly across community. Ombudsman plays a large part of this. ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to create a google doc. Staff Accountability Draft Proposal The staff Accountatbility paper reflects comments made in the discussions that were started. Some views were incorporated, wording was tweaked, initial assessment was proposed. This might be incomplete: still need to go through documents to see how staff could be accountable to SO/ACs. With regards to AoC, all the AoC reviews include key commitments for ICANN, the organization. We have nested regulations that while applicable to SO/ACs should be also applicable to staff and do not have written commitments. We only a paragraph 9.e which refers directly to staff. No particular recommendation in ATRT work refers to Board actions to be undertaken by staff. Articles were found within Bylaws: while they established certain aspects of accountability, they don't address concerns raised. Three proposed CCWG steps are: 1. Review current document so we can extend mechanisms that we are proposing to staff work; 2. Include a work plan as part of WS2 that considers Code of conduct and transparency criteria; 3. Establishment of regular independent audit to track progress. Feedback: - Staff are very often the only one who know what's going on inside inside operation of ICANN. They cannot report what's going on. ATRT has discussed whistblowing and it is pending. It should be part of our accountability package. ---> We should think about adding this component to suggestions. ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task. Diversity - Sebastien's comment covers diversity with regards to different criteria: gender balance, age, region, stakeholders etc. An email from Jan was circulated on this issue which recommended to make exclusive commitments with regards to diversity that would address this issue. WS2 could include specific list of issues on diversity of SO/ACs. Feedback: - A remark made in public forum with regards to diversity has to do with accessibility to those with various disabilities. There is an accessibility group in ALAC. Balancing diversity with other needs can sometimes create unintended consequences. ---> Comments from AFNIC were also submitted: proposal to expand ATRT to diversity review. It also suggests protecting from one region's influence. - Hard to discuss diversity requirements. Unsure whether talking about 29 members. One could look at regional diversity. Is the group happy we would limit diversity to a region - we will need to have an explicit decision of how far we are addressing diversity at this stage. ---> So far, we have looked a geographic only but constructive to consider other factors (language, age, etc). Our document should establish a fixed set of criteria. - There could be an endless cycle of diversity concerns that do not substantically increase overal expertise. It would be very case by case. Sometimes gender diversity would provide a grater enhancement of expertise than geographic diversity. ---> We need balance. - Specific to issue, diversity requirements created on fly. - When we have various models and contracts, we push to meet all diversity in that number. Hard coded requirements should be made different. We get concerns about geographic balance at the cost of volunteers willing to do work. We should look at balance in human kind - we should try mechanisms to bring that. They should be seen as important. We need to take it through staged implementation role. - We invariably end up suffering from diversity requirements. Getting volunteers to do the work is where we severely struggle at ICANN. The largest disability is not speaking English - we are never going to have the money from translation/interpretation that the UN has. - There is a group which is trying to systematically evolve policy culture of ICANN to use metrics. We are doing that by building language into templates that are used for issues report and chartering. In each and every case, it looks at feasibility so that it becomes explicit aspiration, as opposed to implicit. It is the duty of the group to ensure there are enough voices to be heard. Anything that looks like quota is to increase overall implementation in ICANN. We are not opposed to getting more diversity which will have effect of greater involvement. - There may be struggles to get volunteers but it is probably not purely a function of getting people involved. ICANN room is not close to current distribution. - Any discussion should talk about how to expand pool of outsiders for outreach and engagement. - We have cultures that do not work the way ICANN works. Culture is an important aspect we cannot forget. Justifying accountability as impediments might stop participation. We live in complex world. ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address diversity issue.