Hello Anne, Thanks for your questions, and I would like to add a couple of complementary points to Marika’s responses. 1. In response to your first question, I believe each GNSO SG/C, with the assistance from ICANN policy team, is conducting their own assessment of the applicability of WS2 Recommendation 6 and analyzing whether/how it should be implemented. The CCOIC’s report has the limited focus on GNSO Council’s implementation of WS2 recommendations. In addition, WS2 Rec 6 is about accountability related best practices, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. It is not mandatory for each community group to implement. 2. As Marika mentioned, CCOIC hasn’t been tasked to consider the Pilot Holistic Review. However, in discussing the WS2 sub recommendation 6.5.1, CCOICI noted that the Holistic Review could be part of the mechanism for implementation. For more details, please reference page 36 of the CCOICI report. Hope this information is helpful. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com>, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw>, "council@gnso icann. org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Thanks, Anne, for your questions. In relation to the WS2 SO/AC Accountability recommendations, the CCOICI WS Recommendations Report outlines the proposed status of each recommendation based on the CCOICI’s assessment (see pages 8-11 of the executive summary and pages 26-40). Most of these are either considered complete or not applicable for action, as these are not deemed the responsibility of Council but of SG/Cs to implement. As you note, chapter 7.0 of the GNSO Operating Procedures outline the operating principles and participation guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies which already seem to align with a number of the WS2 recommendations but of course, should SG/Cs identify that there are inconsistencies between what the WS2 recommendations are requiring and what this section of the Operating Procedures requires, then further work may be needed. However, as far as I can recall, I don’t think anyone has identified any inconsistencies to date. Regarding your question about the Pilot Holistic Review, FWIW, this is not something that the CCOICI was tasked to consider and/or has come up in the consideration of the WS2 SO/AC Accountability related recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply to: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Date: Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 19:55 To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw>, "council@gnso icann. org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Many thanks, Manju and thanks for stepping up to lead this effort. I am not familiar with the report but plan to read it before the December meeting. One preliminary question I have is about the interrelationship between the Recommendation on SO/AC Accountability and the following: 1. GNSO Operating Procedures Chapter 7 – The Operating Procedures appear to contain accountability mechanisms for use by GNSO-affiliated entities. What is the relationship between the CCOICI WS2 Recommendation and the existing provisions of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures? 1. Pilot Holistic Review – The draft Terms of Reference for the Pilot Holistic Review contained general language regarding an “audit” of SO/AC Accountability . We assume there could be changes in the draft Terms of Reference based on public comment made. What is the impact/relationship between that Pilot Holistic Review process and this Recommendation? I don’t necessarily expect a clear answer to the questions above but staff may have more background. I just wanted to raise the above for purposes of discussion in the December meeting. These questions relate to coordination of efforts in ICANN work and organizational effectiveness. Apologies if the relationships are already clear to those who have been on Council for a long time. (I’m the “newbie”. ;-) Thanks again for stepping up – looking forward to the discussion! Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D90A24.E78A4800] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of ??? Manju Chen via council Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:17 AM To: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Council Members, Please find attached the motion to adopt the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) WS2 Recommendations Report. This will be added to the agenda for our December Council meeting. Best, Manju ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Hi Anne, Thank you for the questions! My responses will be in-lined below: On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:13 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com> wrote:

Hi Manju,

Thank you so much for stepping up to lead this CCOICI effort!

*Reflecting on this CCOICI Motion and responses received from Marika and Ariel, I have the following questions for consideration:*

1. Is some action for staff required by the Motion in relation to the SO/AC Accountability requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures? If so, will that action also take into account any final version of the Terms of Reference for the SO/AC Accountability provisions of the Pilot Holistic Review? Or are we saying the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that? How is this affected by the Motion? Or is there no effect? (Sorry but it’s unclear to me where we are going on this and what ICANN staff is supposed to do.)

The Chapter 7 dictates the operating principles and participation guidance of Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies within the GNSO. In CCOICI, we only review the WS2 recommendations in the sense that whether it applies to Council, we don't review it on behalf of other SO/Cs. As a result, this recommendation report only deals with what we consider concerns and is within the GNSO Council's remit. So in a sense, we're not saying that "the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that". Because we didn't review chapter 7 of GNSO Operating Procedure. Because reviewing chapter 7, which is about each SG/Cs and not Council, is not CCOICI's job. In short, chapter 7 would not be affected by the Motion because the Motion concerns only the GNSO Council and not SG/Cs within the GNSO.

1. Regarding the Human Rights Core Value, could you (or staff) shed more light on the ICANN staff obligations to be confirmed by the Motion with respect to the following:

*“**In relation to 3 (Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights), the GNSO Council directs GNSO Staff Support to work on a proposed implementation of the recommendations, consulting relevant community experts as needed. This proposed implementation is to be reviewed by the GNSO Council before implementation”*

1. What is meant by “consulting relevant community experts as needed” and how will staff know how to identify “community experts” for consultation purposes? Will the consultations be the subject of RFPs that go out to experts? Will that be a public process?

There's a Human Right Cross Community Working Group within ICANN, and GAC also has its own Human rights and International Law Working Group, which works closely with the CCWG - HR. These are 2 of the examples we had in mind for 'relevant community experts.' I don't think the CCOICI envisioned officially outsourcing this via RFPs.

1. In the CCOICI Report to be adopted via the Motion, staff is directed to implement this Core Value in a way that requires ICANN to take into account impact on Human Rights in its policy-making processes. Does adoption of this Motion and the report mean that Council is directing staff to amend the Charter for Working Groups to include a provision requiring the WG to take into account any Human Rights implications? Or are we saying the WG must take in to account all Core Values and perform the “balancing act” stated in the Annex 3 Human Rights Core Value Framework? (Just asking as a former member of the Human Rights SubGroup in the WS2 Accountability Workstream.)

My understanding is that the CCOICI recommends going through a simple

checklist prior to chartering the WG. Once the Council finished answering the questions from the checklist, they'll know whether the WG poses HR impacts or has HR implications. If the answer is yes, the Council should include provisions in the WG charter, requiring the WG to take into account the potential HR impacts.

1. It appears that adoption of the CCOICI Report via this Motion will require the GNSO Council to add a section on Human Rights Impact to its Annual Report and that this will be another requirement for implementation by staff. Do Councilors and staff agree that passing this Motion to adopt the Report will mandate that requirement?

I'm sorry, I'm probably being blind or forgetful, but I don't remember

this recommendation you're referring to. I don't think we're even recommending the Council has an Annual Report. Please enlighten me on what I miss. Again, thank you for the great questions! I'm sure Marika and Arial will jump in anytime to correct any errors in my response. Best, Manju

1.

*It would be great if the minutes of the Council meeting during the passing of this Motion could clarify the implementation requirements for staff in relation to the above items. *

Thank you,

Anne

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

AAikman@lewisroca.com

D. 520.629.4428

*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *??? Manju Chen via council *Sent:* Monday, December 5, 2022 2:17 AM *To:* council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report

*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------

Dear Council Members,

Please find attached the motion to adopt the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) WS2 Recommendations Report.

This will be added to the agenda for our December Council meeting.

Best,

Manju

------------------------------

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Hello Anne and everyone, I defer to Manju and my GNSO staff colleagues for any clarifications that may be needed regarding the GNSO Council’s and the CCOICI’s work on the Work Stream 2 recommendations. As the Council meeting is coming up shortly, I will take the liberty of confirming that, as Manju and you noted, the Council/CCOICI’s scope of work pertained only to the GNSO Council and not the individual GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. In relation to your question about Work Stream 2 Recommendation #6 on SO/AC Accountability, Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures applies specifically to the GNSO SG/Cs, over whom the GNSO Council does not have oversight. Other Policy Development Support staff members are working with the individual SG/Cs on their review and implementation of the relevant Work Stream 2 recommendations, including Recommendation #6. When completed, the outcome of each SG/C’s work will be shared with the broader community, along with those of the GNSO Council and the other SOAC Groups. I’ll note here that the CCOICI report specifically highlights the fact that there is currently a process in place to update the GNSO Operating Procedures. This is responsive to Work Stream 2 Recommendation #6.5.1 (“Each SO/AC/Group should review its policies and procedures at regular intervals and make changes to operational procedures and charter as indicated by the review”) which was thus marked “Complete” from the GNSO Council’s perspective by the CCOICI. Best regards, Mary From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 10:06 AM To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Cc: "council@gnso icann. org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Thank you, Manju. Just for clarity on the SO/AC Accountability assessment process, I am pasting the relevant section of the Report Council will be adopting below: CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Date: 2 November 2022 26 E. Recommendation #6 – SO/AC Accountability Recommendation 6 – From WS2 Final Report Each SO/AC/Group should implement these Good Practices, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. It is not recommended that implementation of these practices be required. Nor is it recommended that any changes be made to the ICANN Bylaws. It should be noted that the Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review. So is the GNSO also saying that its assessment of this aspect of the Accountability work does not require any changes to Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating procedures? If so, I think it’s likely we should say so in the Motion. (Friendly amendment?) You mentioned that this relates only to the Council itself and not to the SOs and ACs but the recommendation is specifically about SOs and ACs and we cover that in GNSO Operating Procedures so I’m still a bit confused as to how this somehow does not require Council to review the provisions of Chapter 7 of its Operating Procedures. Or would we conclude that this will happen in connection with the Pilot Holistic Review Terms of Reference? Bottom line: Is the assessment by Council A. or B. below? A. The GNSO Operating Procedures Chapter 7 provisions adequately cover the Accountability issues and don’t need to be revised. B. The Accountability recommendations don’t apply directly to Council and so if any changes are needed at the SO/AC level, that is up to the individual SOs and ACs and it won’t affect Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. Human Rights Impact in the PDP Process As I understand it, staff will consult the GAC Human Rights and International Law Working Group – and the CCWG – Human Rights (led by Article 19 personnel) to develop a checklist for the Charter of the Working Group. Is the CCWG – Human Rights still meeting and active? I understand that the checklist and the amendments to the PDP Charter Template will be subject to GNSO Council review before being adopted. As mentioned yesterday, I am concerned that WG members not be put in the position of having to conduct a Human Rights assessment themselves because the expertise required would not normally be present in most ICANN Working Groups. Therefore, I think that we will need to be careful to avoid stating that the WG itself is responsible for determining Human Rights Impact or for conducting the Human Rights Impact Assessment itself as part of its deliberations. I suppose the question whether the WG is actually conducting a Human Rights Impact Assessment itself will depend on the nature of the “Human Rights Checklist” to be developed and reviewed by Council. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D91058.BC0BB2B0] From: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:28 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Cc: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, Thank you for the questions! My responses will be in-lined below: On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:13 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>> wrote: Hi Manju, Thank you so much for stepping up to lead this CCOICI effort! Reflecting on this CCOICI Motion and responses received from Marika and Ariel, I have the following questions for consideration: 1. Is some action for staff required by the Motion in relation to the SO/AC Accountability requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures? If so, will that action also take into account any final version of the Terms of Reference for the SO/AC Accountability provisions of the Pilot Holistic Review? Or are we saying the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that? How is this affected by the Motion? Or is there no effect? (Sorry but it’s unclear to me where we are going on this and what ICANN staff is supposed to do.) The Chapter 7 dictates the operating principles and participation guidance of Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies within the GNSO. In CCOICI, we only review the WS2 recommendations in the sense that whether it applies to Council, we don't review it on behalf of other SO/Cs. As a result, this recommendation report only deals with what we consider concerns and is within the GNSO Council's remit. So in a sense, we're not saying that "the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that". Because we didn't review chapter 7 of GNSO Operating Procedure. Because reviewing chapter 7, which is about each SG/Cs and not Council, is not CCOICI's job. In short, chapter 7 would not be affected by the Motion because the Motion concerns only the GNSO Council and not SG/Cs within the GNSO. 1. Regarding the Human Rights Core Value, could you (or staff) shed more light on the ICANN staff obligations to be confirmed by the Motion with respect to the following: “In relation to 3 (Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights), the GNSO Council directs GNSO Staff Support to work on a proposed implementation of the recommendations, consulting relevant community experts as needed. This proposed implementation is to be reviewed by the GNSO Council before implementation” a. What is meant by “consulting relevant community experts as needed” and how will staff know how to identify “community experts” for consultation purposes? Will the consultations be the subject of RFPs that go out to experts? Will that be a public process? There's a Human Right Cross Community Working Group within ICANN, and GAC also has its own Human rights and International Law Working Group, which works closely with the CCWG - HR. These are 2 of the examples we had in mind for 'relevant community experts.' I don't think the CCOICI envisioned officially outsourcing this via RFPs. b. In the CCOICI Report to be adopted via the Motion, staff is directed to implement this Core Value in a way that requires ICANN to take into account impact on Human Rights in its policy-making processes. Does adoption of this Motion and the report mean that Council is directing staff to amend the Charter for Working Groups to include a provision requiring the WG to take into account any Human Rights implications? Or are we saying the WG must take in to account all Core Values and perform the “balancing act” stated in the Annex 3 Human Rights Core Value Framework? (Just asking as a former member of the Human Rights SubGroup in the WS2 Accountability Workstream.) My understanding is that the CCOICI recommends going through a simple checklist prior to chartering the WG. Once the Council finished answering the questions from the checklist, they'll know whether the WG poses HR impacts or has HR implications. If the answer is yes, the Council should include provisions in the WG charter, requiring the WG to take into account the potential HR impacts. c. It appears that adoption of the CCOICI Report via this Motion will require the GNSO Council to add a section on Human Rights Impact to its Annual Report and that this will be another requirement for implementation by staff. Do Councilors and staff agree that passing this Motion to adopt the Report will mandate that requirement? I'm sorry, I'm probably being blind or forgetful, but I don't remember this recommendation you're referring to. I don't think we're even recommending the Council has an Annual Report. Please enlighten me on what I miss. Again, thank you for the great questions! I'm sure Marika and Arial will jump in anytime to correct any errors in my response. Best, Manju c. It would be great if the minutes of the Council meeting during the passing of this Motion could clarify the implementation requirements for staff in relation to the above items. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D91058.BC0BB2B0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of ??? Manju Chen via council Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:17 AM To: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Council Members, Please find attached the motion to adopt the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) WS2 Recommendations Report. This will be added to the agenda for our December Council meeting. Best, Manju ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Thank you, Ariel. That is the precisely the issue that is escaping me. How is it not relevant to Council when the Operating Procedures for Council contain provisions directly applicable to S0/AC Accountability in Chapter 7? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image004.png@01D9108D.815191A0] From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 1:48 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com>; 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Cc: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hello Anne, Adding to what Manju and Mary noted and with regard to your question / comment for WS2 Rec 6 here: “Bottom line: Is the assessment by Council A. or B. below? A. The GNSO Operating Procedures Chapter 7 provisions adequately cover the Accountability issues and don’t need to be revised. B. The Accountability recommendations don’t apply directly to Council and so if any changes are needed at the SO/AC level, that is up to the individual SOs and ACs and it won’t affect Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures.” The assessment by CCOICI is neither A nor B. WS2 Rec 6 has 27 sub recommendations, covering accountability, transparency, participation, outreach, and policy/procedure updates. CCOICI specifically assessed the implementation status of WS2 Rec 6 at the GNSO Council level. The assessment notes that the implementation for 17 sub recommendations has already been completed by the GNSO Council, one (1) sub recommendation is partially completed, and nine (9) sub recommendations are not applicable for the GNSO Council. You are welcome to check pp.7-11 of the CCOICI report here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221104/e04b754d/CCOICIW... The assessment of whether and how WS2 Rec 6 and its sub recommendations are implemented by the GNSO SG/Cs is not within the remit of CCOICI. Chapter 7 of GNSO Operating Procedures was not discussed by CCOICI, as it was not relevant to the assessment of GNSO Council’s implementation of WS2 Rec 6. Hope this helps clarify more. Best Regards, Ariel From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply-To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:53 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>>, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw<mailto:manju@nii.org.tw>> Cc: "council@gnso icann. org<mailto:council@gnso%20icann.%20org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Hello Anne and everyone, I defer to Manju and my GNSO staff colleagues for any clarifications that may be needed regarding the GNSO Council’s and the CCOICI’s work on the Work Stream 2 recommendations. As the Council meeting is coming up shortly, I will take the liberty of confirming that, as Manju and you noted, the Council/CCOICI’s scope of work pertained only to the GNSO Council and not the individual GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. In relation to your question about Work Stream 2 Recommendation #6 on SO/AC Accountability, Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures applies specifically to the GNSO SG/Cs, over whom the GNSO Council does not have oversight. Other Policy Development Support staff members are working with the individual SG/Cs on their review and implementation of the relevant Work Stream 2 recommendations, including Recommendation #6. When completed, the outcome of each SG/C’s work will be shared with the broader community, along with those of the GNSO Council and the other SOAC Groups. I’ll note here that the CCOICI report specifically highlights the fact that there is currently a process in place to update the GNSO Operating Procedures. This is responsive to Work Stream 2 Recommendation #6.5.1 (“Each SO/AC/Group should review its policies and procedures at regular intervals and make changes to operational procedures and charter as indicated by the review”) which was thus marked “Complete” from the GNSO Council’s perspective by the CCOICI. Best regards, Mary From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply-To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 10:06 AM To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw<mailto:manju@nii.org.tw>> Cc: "council@gnso icann. org<mailto:council@gnso%20icann.%20org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Thank you, Manju. Just for clarity on the SO/AC Accountability assessment process, I am pasting the relevant section of the Report Council will be adopting below: CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report Date: 2 November 2022 26 E. Recommendation #6 – SO/AC Accountability Recommendation 6 – From WS2 Final Report Each SO/AC/Group should implement these Good Practices, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. It is not recommended that implementation of these practices be required. Nor is it recommended that any changes be made to the ICANN Bylaws. It should be noted that the Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review. So is the GNSO also saying that its assessment of this aspect of the Accountability work does not require any changes to Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating procedures? If so, I think it’s likely we should say so in the Motion. (Friendly amendment?) You mentioned that this relates only to the Council itself and not to the SOs and ACs but the recommendation is specifically about SOs and ACs and we cover that in GNSO Operating Procedures so I’m still a bit confused as to how this somehow does not require Council to review the provisions of Chapter 7 of its Operating Procedures. Or would we conclude that this will happen in connection with the Pilot Holistic Review Terms of Reference? Bottom line: Is the assessment by Council A. or B. below? A. The GNSO Operating Procedures Chapter 7 provisions adequately cover the Accountability issues and don’t need to be revised. B. The Accountability recommendations don’t apply directly to Council and so if any changes are needed at the SO/AC level, that is up to the individual SOs and ACs and it won’t affect Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. Human Rights Impact in the PDP Process As I understand it, staff will consult the GAC Human Rights and International Law Working Group – and the CCWG – Human Rights (led by Article 19 personnel) to develop a checklist for the Charter of the Working Group. Is the CCWG – Human Rights still meeting and active? I understand that the checklist and the amendments to the PDP Charter Template will be subject to GNSO Council review before being adopted. As mentioned yesterday, I am concerned that WG members not be put in the position of having to conduct a Human Rights assessment themselves because the expertise required would not normally be present in most ICANN Working Groups. Therefore, I think that we will need to be careful to avoid stating that the WG itself is responsible for determining Human Rights Impact or for conducting the Human Rights Impact Assessment itself as part of its deliberations. I suppose the question whether the WG is actually conducting a Human Rights Impact Assessment itself will depend on the nature of the “Human Rights Checklist” to be developed and reviewed by Council. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image006.png@01D9108D.815191A0] From: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw<mailto:manju@nii.org.tw>> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:28 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>> Cc: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, Thank you for the questions! My responses will be in-lined below: On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:13 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>> wrote: Hi Manju, Thank you so much for stepping up to lead this CCOICI effort! Reflecting on this CCOICI Motion and responses received from Marika and Ariel, I have the following questions for consideration: 1. Is some action for staff required by the Motion in relation to the SO/AC Accountability requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures? If so, will that action also take into account any final version of the Terms of Reference for the SO/AC Accountability provisions of the Pilot Holistic Review? Or are we saying the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that? How is this affected by the Motion? Or is there no effect? (Sorry but it’s unclear to me where we are going on this and what ICANN staff is supposed to do.) The Chapter 7 dictates the operating principles and participation guidance of Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies within the GNSO. In CCOICI, we only review the WS2 recommendations in the sense that whether it applies to Council, we don't review it on behalf of other SO/Cs. As a result, this recommendation report only deals with what we consider concerns and is within the GNSO Council's remit. So in a sense, we're not saying that "the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that". Because we didn't review chapter 7 of GNSO Operating Procedure. Because reviewing chapter 7, which is about each SG/Cs and not Council, is not CCOICI's job. In short, chapter 7 would not be affected by the Motion because the Motion concerns only the GNSO Council and not SG/Cs within the GNSO. 1. Regarding the Human Rights Core Value, could you (or staff) shed more light on the ICANN staff obligations to be confirmed by the Motion with respect to the following: “In relation to 3 (Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights), the GNSO Council directs GNSO Staff Support to work on a proposed implementation of the recommendations, consulting relevant community experts as needed. This proposed implementation is to be reviewed by the GNSO Council before implementation” a. What is meant by “consulting relevant community experts as needed” and how will staff know how to identify “community experts” for consultation purposes? Will the consultations be the subject of RFPs that go out to experts? Will that be a public process? There's a Human Right Cross Community Working Group within ICANN, and GAC also has its own Human rights and International Law Working Group, which works closely with the CCWG - HR. These are 2 of the examples we had in mind for 'relevant community experts.' I don't think the CCOICI envisioned officially outsourcing this via RFPs. b. In the CCOICI Report to be adopted via the Motion, staff is directed to implement this Core Value in a way that requires ICANN to take into account impact on Human Rights in its policy-making processes. Does adoption of this Motion and the report mean that Council is directing staff to amend the Charter for Working Groups to include a provision requiring the WG to take into account any Human Rights implications? Or are we saying the WG must take in to account all Core Values and perform the “balancing act” stated in the Annex 3 Human Rights Core Value Framework? (Just asking as a former member of the Human Rights SubGroup in the WS2 Accountability Workstream.) My understanding is that the CCOICI recommends going through a simple checklist prior to chartering the WG. Once the Council finished answering the questions from the checklist, they'll know whether the WG poses HR impacts or has HR implications. If the answer is yes, the Council should include provisions in the WG charter, requiring the WG to take into account the potential HR impacts. c. It appears that adoption of the CCOICI Report via this Motion will require the GNSO Council to add a section on Human Rights Impact to its Annual Report and that this will be another requirement for implementation by staff. Do Councilors and staff agree that passing this Motion to adopt the Report will mandate that requirement? I'm sorry, I'm probably being blind or forgetful, but I don't remember this recommendation you're referring to. I don't think we're even recommending the Council has an Annual Report. Please enlighten me on what I miss. Again, thank you for the great questions! I'm sure Marika and Arial will jump in anytime to correct any errors in my response. Best, Manju c. It would be great if the minutes of the Council meeting during the passing of this Motion could clarify the implementation requirements for staff in relation to the above items. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image006.png@01D9108D.815191A0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of ??? Manju Chen via council Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:17 AM To: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Council Members, Please find attached the motion to adopt the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) WS2 Recommendations Report. This will be added to the agenda for our December Council meeting. Best, Manju ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.