Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #10 – 14 December 2016 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/nJTDAw

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)

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior

Thomas Rickert: Introduction, SOIs , audio only GS, MK, SO, BO.

Farzaneh Badii: Have changed affiliation given I have completed by PhD and I have joined the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech and will start in January.

2. Administration

      •  Timeline

avri doria: Staff Acct is not going to make that schedule (Track 2)

Chris Wilson: transparency might

       •  IRP-IOT Public Consultation

       •  ATRT3 Letter to SO/ACs

       •  Funding for ICANN 58

Bernard Turcotte: due to a miss-communication with ICANN Travel we are late in providing the names of our supported travellers to them. As such the co-chairs will evaluate and approve a first batch of applications as of Monday 19 December and confirm those to ICANN Travel by Wednesday 21 December. All other application will be reviewed as per the originally proposed dates.

3. Legal Committee

       •  Review of Requests

Leon Sanchez: There are no outstanding requests as we have reciev ed replies to the HR questions a few hours ago.

       •  Process for requests from IRP-IOT

Leon Sanchez: review of process for the IRP-IOT making requests of external legal counsel.

David McAuley: (Background on IRP-IOT asking for legal advice) Going forward the IRP IOT Rapporteur can access outside counsel directly, keeping ICANN Legal and the PCST informed of these requests.

Malcolm Hutty: want to ensure Holly and Rosemary will continue to advise the IRPIOT directly.

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Completely agree with Malcolm.

Leon Sachez: you will not lose this ability. The Chair concludes that moving forward the IRP IOT Rapporteur can access outside counsel directly, keeping ICANN Legal and the PCST informed of these requests.

4. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups

       •  IGF

Steve DelBianco: (no document) A number of sessions related to ICANN work and CCWG-Accountability. These were noted as a good example of multi-stakeholder model at work. Govts grateful and amazed that the IANA contract was allowed to lapse. Should generate more participation in the ICANN multistakeholder process.

Thomas Rickert: any other views? Also want to thank AD for her efforts at the IGF vs our work. No other comments.

       •  Ombudsman

Sebastien Bachollet: (2 slides) External Review process now underway. currently working out the schedule of the work. May not complete by July 2017.

       •  SO/AC accountability

Steve DelBianco: (dashboard slide) Have made significant progress - we have 3 tracks - 1 awaiting replies to questionnaire. Track 2 and 3 we have preliminary conclusions which we will be reviewing on our group call tomorrow.

Kavouss Arasteh: time to reply has passed. How many replies were received by deadline and how long this will be extended. Can we have an explanation of how replies will be analyzed.

Steve DelBianco: gNSO sub-groups will be providing individual replies given they have separate charters. Process for analysis will be discussed on our sub-group call tomorrow.

       •  Diversity

Rafik Dammak: continuing to develop our document and questionnaire so we can obtain plenary feedback on which areas of diversity they consider important.  working on identifying sources of information on diversity.

       •  Jurisdiction (review of questions)

Greg Shatan: (display of preamble and questions document). Trying to get evidence of issues surrounding jurisdiction. We have added a fourth question which has been under discussion by the group. Reading of document so this could be a first reading.

Kavouss Arasteh: who will reply to this - if it does not properly represent the global multi-stakeholder community the results cannot be valid.

Mathieu Weill: Responses we receive need to be analyzed carefully and not claim representativeness if there is none - but this is the nature of this process and we have experience in this.

Seun Ojedeji: Is ICANN state of incorporation open for discussion or not?

Megan Richards: is it not our responsibility to do outreach to get widest possible response? then responses will of. course be assessed based on source

David McAuley (RySG): Agree that it will be quite hard to weigh replies in this unscientific survey, especially how to weigh opinions that might be posted.

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: It is, Megan I agree. No survey can be perfectly exhaustive

Greg Shatan: In response to Kavous a majority of Jurisdiction participants are non-US based. turning to questions.

Jeff Neuman: What is a "DNS-related service".  Most DNS services have NOTHING to do with ICANN

Chris Disspain: Jeff + 1

Farzaneh Badii: well Jeff if their contract with ICANN affect their policies in providing service for the users then it has something to do with ICANN.

Greg Shatan:(reading of questions fom document).

Chris Disspain: who are we intending to ask these questions?

Greg Shatan: As large a group as possible. but not a public comment.

Chris Disspain: so how can we be sure that responders understand what ICANN's role is and are not answering the questions from a wrong basis?

Jeff Neuman: the only DNS providers that are under contract with ICANN are those that happen to also be registries or registrars....and even those do not have their managed DNS services regulated by ICANN

Farzaneh Badii: Jeff, some registries and registrars, sometimes presume that they have to apply OFAC even when not based in the US. registries and registrars should be briefed they don't have to apply OFAC regulations

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Jeff, I noted your question as well

Farzaneh Badii: I am hoping that with this exercise we can clarify jurisdictional confusions. not to change ICANN's jurisdiction

Nathalie Vergnolle: On behalf of Jorge Cancio: "I apologize for not being able to attend today’s call due to other prior engagements. Let me add that I’m in support of sending out all 4 questions prepared in the Jurisdiction Group. I feel that at this point of our discussions, where we are trying to gather as many facts, experiences and reasoned opinions as possible which are relevant for the influence that ICANN’s jurisdiction has on its operations and accountability mechanisms, we should not rule out questions (as question nr. 4) that have been considered important by an important part of the Subgroup (in fact, by a slight majority of it).At later stages we may determine whether ingoing responses regarding that question are factual or are mere opinions without a well-founded basis. At this moment I think that excluding relevant questions could give rise to wrong perceptions and could potentially prevent us from knowing relevant experiences/assessments covered only by question nr.

Seun Ojedeji: Did not get answer to my question.

Greg Shatan: potentially yes. Group methodology is to identify issues and then look for remedies. If there is an issue that requires this remedy, then we would consider it.

Kavouss Arasteh: First question - should not mention business or privacy.

Farzaneh Badii: thank you Kavouss :) talking for non-commercial users

Jeff Neuman: Why do we say DNS-related services?  Why not just domain names?

Farzaneh Badii: I agree with you Jeff

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: +1 Jeff

Farzaneh Badii: Domain name is a better term. DNS is too broad

Greg Shatan: these are OR based so essentially asking 3 questions. As to DNS - used in colloquial sense - not as managed DNS - but rather as the domain name system in general.

Kavouss Arasteh: We should remain general

Jeff Neuman: Most purchasers of DNS related services have no clue who ICANN is

Farzaneh Badii: but DNS could mean RIRs too ... but we are not talking about them

Wale Bakare: Domain names may be too complex but DNS is like targeting ICANN's customers directly. Domain names - end users generally, i think

David McAuley: I think this questionnaire is a mistaken effort. We should be focusing on contract disputes vs jurisdiction. WS2 is not the appropriate place to look into ICANN state of incorporation.

Kavouss Arasteh: David  the entire 4 questions are package

avri doria: on the other hand a lot of others do think that WS2 is the only time to start dealing with these issues.

Farzaneh Badii: @David, where should we discuss these issues?

Kavouss Arasteh: All or none

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: that binary makes no sense

Steve DelBianco: +1 Robin

Kavouss Arasteh: Yes, it make sense

David McAuley (RySG): Farzi, not sure, but believe that WS2 is not the place. As a place to start the larger discussion, my concern is WS2 timeframe among others

Farzaneh Badii: yeah time frame is too short I agree. But I fear that if we don't discuss now we never discuss.

Mathieu Weill: We have gone as far as we can go today on this topic. We will come back to this at our next meeting.

Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu , we need advice to the sub group that chair must maintain its neutrality and just conduct the meeting and therefore not to insist on his views and his colleagues views.

Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Kavouss - that is not right

Kavouss Arasteh: Yes Finn ,I am aware of your views on the entire process and you do not need to repeat it

Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Kavouss - sorry - I think that your views are also known :)

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Kavouss, all : let's now focus on HR please.

Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls let us not say who is right and who is not right

Kavouss Arasteh: Finn , you may not be aware of problems of others regarding jurisdiction as Denmark has no problem with US jurisdiction unconditionally apply to every case

Kavouss Arasteh: Pls then, let us express our views and kindly no say whether we are right or wrong. We are what we are

Greg Shatan: I'll note to the chat that on the jurisdiction questions, these are being put forth for individual review, discussion and approval by the CCWG Plenary.  There was no discussion in the subgroup of putting them forward as a package.

Kavouss Arasteh: We discuss every thing, nothing agreed until every thing is agreed

Greg Shatan: Kavouss, I agree that the plenary should have a free and open discussion, without preconditions.

Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu, Thomas, Leon,

Kavouss Arasteh: If Greg insist to to accept the logic of the importance of Q4, we have serious difficulties at the next step

Kavouss Arasteh: to not accept

Greg Shatan: Kavouss, I have only reported the levels of support for each question.  The conclusions about those levels, and the conclusions of the plenary, are not mine to make.

Kavouss Arasteh: But the concept of Q 4 is important and you implictly rejecting the q4

 •  Human rights (first reading)

Greg Shatan: reading of document.

Tatiana Tropina: continue reading document.

Leon Sanchez: Any comments?

David McAuley: re applicable law - should be clear as read.

Leon Sanchez: This concludes the first reading of this document with no major modifications.

Kavouss Arasteh: Can we do second reading now?

Leon Sanchez: Good suggestion but we have a process which we should respect.

Tatiana Tropina: would be good if anyone who has comments submits them via email list

avri doria: agree with respecting interval to discuss between readings.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed +1

Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Kudos to the HR subgroup, Niels and the drafting team! Outstanding work

       •  Transparency (first reading)

Thomas Rickert:Let us move on to the  this revised transparency document.

Michael Karanicholas: review of major changes - Whistleblower and interactions with govts are essentially the same. Format of document has been updated. Transparency vs Board deliberations - ability to exclude input as what is essentially a discretionary decision - new text here - DIDP a few additions. Included some language on open contracting - not retroactive. Narrowing scope of client-attorney privilege - in Hyderabad ICANN legal said they would be open to this. Let us remember that ICANN has the ability to release any information privileged information it wishes. Discussion of CW comments to the list - however cost of implementation is beyond our mandate.

Steve DelBianco: IRP is complex and expensive, and may not be the best tool to challenge the board for redacting a single portion of its meeting minutes.

Michael Karanicolas: Hi Steve - I think the concern is that there should be some accountability/oversight. Do you have an alternate suggestion?

Thomas Rickert: Great document.

Kavouss Arasteh: Question - Removing parts of Board minutes before or after Board approval of minutes?

Greg Shatan: very concerned regarding client-attorney privilege?

Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Good document - One point:  It is proposed to “provide a clearer picture of how, when, and to what extent ICANN engages with governments”. I prefer to extend it to cover all parties that ICANN discusses policy matters with – that is, not only to governments.

Kavouss Arasteh: Aha, Someone from GAC opposing to governments '''

avri doria: transparency should be the default condition.

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: I agree, Avri.  The traditional roles don't work in this context

Thomas Rickert: We are collecting the comments and not trying to deal with them here.

David Mcauley: sub-group has not approved this for a first reading.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree David too soon for 1st read here

David McAuley (RySG): I think Michael's update was great but I think we have not addressed this at subteam level - Michael?

Chris Wilson: Expect further discussion on our call on Dec. 15.

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Best to follow proper process and go through sub team.

avri doria: I respect the work they are doing to try and meet the staff schedule for completing the work.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and we have not had our so meeting yet

David McAuley (RySG): Timing is tight and again I think Michael's presentation today was a superb update

Chris Wilson:Not trying to short-circuit the sub-group.

Greg Shatan 2: Perhaps this should be considered a "discussion," rather than a "first reading."

Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Agree, Greg.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes a great update but not a 1st read

Thomas Rickert: Could we ask the sub-team to provide the plenary with a revised version for the next meeting of the plenary. Would also ask participants to provide any comments on this to the plenary list. 

5. AOB

Kavouss Arasteh: HR congratulations should be made officially.

Mathieu Weill: this has been done earlier in the meetings and is in the notes.

6. Adjournment