Hello, I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past. Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail). That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or at best become one sided. Regards On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.

The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in. For the subgroup leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems backwards.

I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of sending it back to the subteam. It should have either approved the second reading or sent it back for further work.

avri

I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.

On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.

The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:

remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32.

The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input:

A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs.

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

To our CCWG colleagues:

Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including:

Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.

For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…”

Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented.

Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.

Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation

Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes

Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.

We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1

Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar.

Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi Kavouss, I first recommended dropping the word "mutual" in the adobe chat. I have a question specifically for you. Since I was not able to attend the in-person meeting and I don't know what happened, I was wondering if you could explain the drastic shift in your position on MAR. You were a vocal advocate of not having MAR in place since the start of this group and several times called it an academic idea and that it was theoretical and not practical. We have your comments on that documented. "Should the leaders of SO/ACs take each other into account? (Kavouss disagreed with this idea )" "Mr. Arasteh also thinks it is difficult to implement the MAR and he is opposed to get together of SO/AC chairs in MAR." In an email you sent to the soac group on 13/8/2016, you said"The whole idea [MAR] is vague and unnecessary". Did GAC change its position on MAR? Were you not representing GAC at the time and now you are representing GAC? I think it is necessary to explain the shift in your position to the group, for the sake of clarification. Farzaneh On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All, First of all ,I would like to express my disappointment and frustrations resulted the way Cheryl and Steve both interrupted my intervention when I was describing the problem . The requires formal apology from these two respectful persons . This is not the first time they interrupt me and they have exceeded the limit. Secondly, I am happy that the term "RANK" was dropped in the part relating to "membership "" In this respect I object to the statement made by Cheryl when she said "MEMBERSHIP RANK "in her English language is equivalent to "MEMBERSHIP COLLECTIVELY "This was not a true statement as ono one seems to teaching anyone else linguistic terms. I interpreted her as saying my knowledge in English is poor and insufficient as I did not know the meaning of"MEMBERSHIP RANK ".This statement that she publicly made when replied to me is formally contested . This kind of underestimating the ability and competence of others requires formal appolgy, . Thirdly, I had to leave the call due to medical check up and understand that Steve proposed to delete the term "MUTUAL"in the term "Mutual Accountability" As a formal Member from CCWG appointed by GAC , I strongly object to such deletion. Pls be careful that there must be consensus on any action being taken Regards Kavouss

2017-03-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

Hello,

I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past. Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).

That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or at best become one sided.

Regards

On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.

The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in. For the subgroup leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems backwards.

I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of sending it back to the subteam. It should have either approved the second reading or sent it back for further work.

avri

I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.

On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.

The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:

remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32.

The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input:

A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs.

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

To our CCWG colleagues:

Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including:

Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.

For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…”

Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented.

Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.

Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation

Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes

Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.

We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1

Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar.

Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Kavouss, I am struggling with understanding what you mean by "I feel disappointed that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my statement. " you mean Cheryl and Steve warmed me up (encouraged?) to scrutinize your statement? Remember that I am a co-rapporteur too, wrote many aspects of the document of soac accountability, and also may I remind you that I can have opinions of my own. It is very disappointing that you don't think that and I think the one person in this group that should reconsider his behavior is you Kavouss. You have changed your position on MAR. That's fine. But I think it was totally fair to ask if this was GAC opinion or your opinion which has changed. Which you clarified. I also think that it is fair to ask to provide a rationale for the shift in your position and point us to what situation has evolved. You don't have to answer though. I just wanted the group to know that you were championing a very different position repeatedly and for a long time and there was a sudden shift in your position. It is up to you to provide a reason for such shift other than the vague statement that "the situation has evolved". Farzaneh On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Farzaneh Tks The situation has evolved. I did not speak for GAC at that time nor do I speak now. When referred to GAC it was merely indicating that I am not observer but a member I feel disappointed that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my statement. I di not appreciate that at all. You should act as you believe and as you think with full integrity. Pls reconsider your actions and behavior Best regards Kavouss.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2017, at 14:25, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kavouss,

I first recommended dropping the word "mutual" in the adobe chat.

I have a question specifically for you. Since I was not able to attend the in-person meeting and I don't know what happened, I was wondering if you could explain the drastic shift in your position on MAR. You were a vocal advocate of not having MAR in place since the start of this group and several times called it an academic idea and that it was theoretical and not practical. We have your comments on that documented.

"Should the leaders of SO/ACs take each other into account? (Kavouss disagreed with this idea )" "Mr. Arasteh also thinks it is difficult to implement the MAR and he is opposed to get together of SO/AC chairs in MAR."

In an email you sent to the soac group on 13/8/2016, you said"The whole idea [MAR] is vague and unnecessary".

Did GAC change its position on MAR? Were you not representing GAC at the time and now you are representing GAC? I think it is necessary to explain the shift in your position to the group, for the sake of clarification.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear All, First of all ,I would like to express my disappointment and frustrations resulted the way Cheryl and Steve both interrupted my intervention when I was describing the problem . The requires formal apology from these two respectful persons . This is not the first time they interrupt me and they have exceeded the limit. Secondly, I am happy that the term "RANK" was dropped in the part relating to "membership "" In this respect I object to the statement made by Cheryl when she said "MEMBERSHIP RANK "in her English language is equivalent to "MEMBERSHIP COLLECTIVELY "This was not a true statement as ono one seems to teaching anyone else linguistic terms. I interpreted her as saying my knowledge in English is poor and insufficient as I did not know the meaning of"MEMBERSHIP RANK ".This statement that she publicly made when replied to me is formally contested . This kind of underestimating the ability and competence of others requires formal appolgy, . Thirdly, I had to leave the call due to medical check up and understand that Steve proposed to delete the term "MUTUAL"in the term "Mutual Accountability" As a formal Member from CCWG appointed by GAC , I strongly object to such deletion. Pls be careful that there must be consensus on any action being taken Regards Kavouss

2017-03-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

Hello,

I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past. Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).

That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or at best become one sided.

Regards

On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.

The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in. For the subgroup leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems backwards.

I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of sending it back to the subteam. It should have either approved the second reading or sent it back for further work.

avri

I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.

On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:

...

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.

The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:

remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32.

The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input:

A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs.

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

To our CCWG colleagues:

Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including:

Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.

For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…”

Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented.

Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.

Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation

Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes

Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.

We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1

Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar.

Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Farzaneh Pls read my second message carefully in which I explained that my position was like your position i.e. MAC under the conditions that we agreed and submitted to CCWG. That agreed position by all was changed by the last message of Steve in dropping " mutual" before Accountability. I have not changed my position at all ad I agreed to the text which was submitted to CCWG. I disagreed to the suppression of the word" mutual" before accountability as I wanted to be part of consensus This last position you have wrongly and inappropriately interpreted as " change of position " which was totally WONG I do not know why you behaving as such Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2017, at 14:52, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Kavouss,

I am struggling with understanding what you mean by "I feel disappointed that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my statement. " you mean Cheryl and Steve warmed me up (encouraged?) to scrutinize your statement? Remember that I am a co-rapporteur too, wrote many aspects of the document of soac accountability, and also may I remind you that I can have opinions of my own. It is very disappointing that you don't think that and I think the one person in this group that should reconsider his behavior is you Kavouss.

You have changed your position on MAR. That's fine. But I think it was totally fair to ask if this was GAC opinion or your opinion which has changed. Which you clarified. I also think that it is fair to ask to provide a rationale for the shift in your position and point us to what situation has evolved. You don't have to answer though. I just wanted the group to know that you were championing a very different position repeatedly and for a long time and there was a sudden shift in your position. It is up to you to provide a reason for such shift other than the vague statement that "the situation has evolved".

Farzaneh

...

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Farzaneh Tks The situation has evolved. I did not speak for GAC at that time nor do I speak now. When referred to GAC it was merely indicating that I am not observer but a member I feel disappointed that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my statement. I di not appreciate that at all. You should act as you believe and as you think with full integrity. Pls reconsider your actions and behavior Best regards Kavouss.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 30 Mar 2017, at 14:25, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kavouss,

I first recommended dropping the word "mutual" in the adobe chat.

I have a question specifically for you. Since I was not able to attend the in-person meeting and I don't know what happened, I was wondering if you could explain the drastic shift in your position on MAR. You were a vocal advocate of not having MAR in place since the start of this group and several times called it an academic idea and that it was theoretical and not practical. We have your comments on that documented.

"Should the leaders of SO/ACs take each other into account? (Kavouss disagreed with this idea )" "Mr. Arasteh also thinks it is difficult to implement the MAR and he is opposed to get together of SO/AC chairs in MAR."

In an email you sent to the soac group on 13/8/2016, you said"The whole idea [MAR] is vague and unnecessary".

Did GAC change its position on MAR? Were you not representing GAC at the time and now you are representing GAC? I think it is necessary to explain the shift in your position to the group, for the sake of clarification.

Farzaneh

...

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, First of all ,I would like to express my disappointment and frustrations resulted the way Cheryl and Steve both interrupted my intervention when I was describing the problem . The requires formal apology from these two respectful persons . This is not the first time they interrupt me and they have exceeded the limit. Secondly, I am happy that the term "RANK" was dropped in the part relating to "membership "" In this respect I object to the statement made by Cheryl when she said "MEMBERSHIP RANK "in her English language is equivalent to "MEMBERSHIP COLLECTIVELY "This was not a true statement as ono one seems to teaching anyone else linguistic terms. I interpreted her as saying my knowledge in English is poor and insufficient as I did not know the meaning of"MEMBERSHIP RANK ".This statement that she publicly made when replied to me is formally contested . This kind of underestimating the ability and competence of others requires formal appolgy, . Thirdly, I had to leave the call due to medical check up and understand that Steve proposed to delete the term "MUTUAL"in the term "Mutual Accountability" As a formal Member from CCWG appointed by GAC , I strongly object to such deletion. Pls be careful that there must be consensus on any action being taken Regards Kavouss

2017-03-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

Hello,

I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past. Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).

That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or at best become one sided.

Regards

...

On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,

I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.

The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in. For the subgroup leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems backwards.

I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of sending it back to the subteam. It should have either approved the second reading or sent it back for further work.

avri

I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.

On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote: > Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC > Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment. > > The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are: > > remove the word “ranks” on page 7. > remove the word “mutual” on page 32. > > > The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek > community input: > > > A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual > Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be > expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is > held accountable to the other SO/ACs. > > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org > <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com > <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii > <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, > "ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" > <ws2-so_ac@icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff > <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte > <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> > Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary > 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017 > > To our CCWG colleagues: > > Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC > Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our > first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including: > > > Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are > not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN. > > For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say > "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable > and an improvement…” > > Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best > practices have been implemented. > > Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual > general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs. > > Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation > > Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and > minutes > > Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices. > > We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1 > > Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd > reading on 29-Mar. > > Regards, > Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii > Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community