Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #16 – 12 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0rbRAw 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 [cid:image001.png@01D2B44A.E0794830] Action Items: · Greg Shatan – Provide next update on this at the 21 June plenary. · Staff - prepare draft to submit comment to FY18 OP&B and notice to chartering organizations. Notes Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 34 participants at start of call 19:01 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda Leon Sanchez - no changes 3. Administration Leon Sanchez - (review of AI's) Bernard Turcotte - SOAC public consultation should be up later this week. 4. Legal Committee Update Leon Sanchez - would ask SE to walk us through this quickly. Samantha Eisner - (walk through response document). Lori Schulman: Well done Samantha. Concise answers to difficult questions. Kavouss Arasteh - this reply will also help add to the Jurisdiction questionnaire - but this has to be continued in the Jurisdiction sub-group. 5. Updates/Presentation from sub-groups HR first Reading Niels ten Oever - (presentation of document for first reading). Accidentally dropped one of the footnotes - now fixed in the Google doc. Niels ten Oever: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17AvMLBfT8BmC3gUOTvaIuTuEqMbgiporUwqNymvh... Kavouss Arasteh - as is the normal procedure all those from the HR sub-group should accept this is the consensus of that group and should not object at this point during this presentation. David McAuley (RySG): Thank you Niels, agree with your take on the footnote Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Great job Niels and the group... Kavouss Arasteh - this should be the second reading. Leon Sanchez - No this is a first reading as per our procedures. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thank you Niels. QUESTION: Are we going to discuss the letter from the Board re "impact of the FOI"? QUESTION Leon Sanchez - Re the letter from the Board - Board is advising that staff to conduct an HRIA and will be providing input in the public consultation on this. Any questions (none). Congratulations to the HR subgroup. Decision – Second half of the Human Rights document passes first reading. Update on IRP-IOT David McAuley - Brief update on IOT PC and then go on to EOI for panelist. Trying to stress using the list more than meetings. David McAuley (RySG): Bylaw 4.3(j)(i) provides for an IRP standing panel of at least 7 members and then Bylaw 4.3(j)(ii)(B) goes on to provide: “ICANN shall issue a call for expressions of interest from potential panelists, and work with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and the Board to identify and solicit applications from well-qualified candidates, and to conduct an initial review and vetting of applications.” Brenda Brewer: IRP-IOT wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/TheOAw David McAuley (RySG): Qualifications for panelists are listed in Bylaw 4.3(j)(i) and 4.3(q) David McAuley (RySG): Sam Eisner sent ICANN’s draft EOI to the IOT for its views (which we are working on). Sam’s mail is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-March/000174.html David McAuley (RySG): My comments as an IOT participant on the draft EOI are here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-April/000185.html Mathieu Weill - good presentation thank you DM. Recommend that everyone focus on spreading the EOI as wide as possible. Alan Greenberg - As a chair of an AC who will have to work in this process but it seems to be a complete process vacuum. Are each SOAC picking one or is it a community process? David McAuley - EOI is not public yet it is being finalized (4 to 6 weeks). As to AG comments he is correct - Bylaws are overly perfunctory in this area. I have presented this to SOACs and the IOT agrees with me that the IOT take on an advisory role and will advise SOACs as to the steps they should be taking. Kavouss Arasteh - What happens if the Board rejects a majority of candidates? Situation of SOACs to select these panelists is rather thin in process in procedures - we need high level guidelines for the SOAC. Lastly what do we mean by dissemination - what do we mean by this? Do not agree with DM regarding DEMONSTRATING qualifications which he does not want to require. David McAuley - re not board not confirming - Bylaws say NOT UNREASONBLY. WRT guiding principles - the Bylaws are the Bylaws - the SO and ACs will have to agree out how they will be agreeing to select members. Dissemination is unlimited - law schools, bar associations etc. Samantha Eisner - re AG question - selection of candidates for panel - and yes there is no process - wondering what staff could do to help with this. We still have several months prior to us providing SOACs with lists of candidates - and let us remember this will be a recurring process so we need to document the process for the future. So staff is waiting to help as requested. Mathieu Weill - yes we need concrete process proposals to kick start this and the IOT is well positioned to help in this and would hope that the IOT would launch this discussion with some draft proposals. Alan Greenberg - we need to involve SOACs with this ASAP. We are trying to organize ourselves for the EC but this is wider - but each SOAC has to decide this. These things take a while to get done. David McAuley (RySG): Good suggestion Alan Decision – Have IOT work with staff to help prepare SOACs for the task of selecting IRP panel members. This should include ensuring the chairs of all the SOACs discuss this requirement ASAP. Update on Jurisdiction sub-group Greg Shatan - (presentation of document) Mathieu Weill - GS thank for this. Any questions? Kavouss Arasteh - do not see this approach being very productive - is there any hope of any results in the short term? I see little hope - all groups will finish except this one. Do not want to reach a point of consensus by exhaustion. Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: Thanks, Greg. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): REsponses to the questionnaire will be very helpful. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed if that is not progress not sure what else to call it Mathieu Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg, the scope issue is essential to resolve David McAuley (RySG): +1 @CLO matthew shears: thanks Greg and agree Mathieu Weill - We should not underestimate the milestones reached by the group such as the response by ICANN legal and the responses to the questionnaire and we need to look at these before being pessimistic on the possible results. We need to use the issue driven approach which could generate useful outcomes. Would request a further update in a few months to see where we are. We all need to make a commitment to close this topic before the IGF discussions close. Action Item – Greg Shatan – Provide next update on this at the 21 June plenary. 6. WS2 Extension for FY18 (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018) Bernie walks thru presentation of FY18 Estimates. Initial budget for entire project was $8.8M. FY17 current forecast is $5.3M. FY18 estimates is $3.4M, ie should break even. These are rough estimates at this time, given the time we had to produce these. David McAuley - what falls under Prof Svces other than Legal? Bernie - These are Comms costs to support final report ACTION (Staff): prepare draft to submit comment to FY18 OP&B and notice to chartering organizations. Mathieu Weill – Would like to thank all departments which worked to make possible on behalf of the entire CCWG-Accoutanbility. Kavouss Arastreh - Is this information available? Mathieu Weil - Yes, the presentation was distributed through the mailing list. Brenda Brewer: This document will also be posted on the CCWG ACCT Meeting Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/0rbRAw 7. Next Plenary - Wednesday 26 April 0500UTC 8. AOB (none) 9. Adjournment Decisions: · Second half of the Human Rights document passes first reading. · Have IOT work with staff to help prepare SOACs for the task of selecting IRP panel members. This should include ensuring the chairs of all the SOACs discuss this requirement ASAP.