Hallo All Apologies for delay in sharing the notes for the work stream 4 call 1 held on 31st May 2013 13:00-14:00 UTC. The main objective of the call was to agree on the issues in order to get us started. Work Stream 4 – Consider the extent to which assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest Language to the theme does not change, it remains as stated. Chair: Fiona Asonga Facilitator: Lise Fuhr WS 4 Members Present: • Brian Cute • Fiona Asonga (Chair) • Carlos Raúl Gutierrez • Olivier Crépin-Leblond • Lise Fuhr (Facilitator) • Jørgen Abild Andersen New Issues: - Looking at the recommendations of the three other groups – ICANN’s interpretation of review team recommendations – ICANN’s implementation of the recommendations. Asking the question: “Does it satisfy the standard outlined in the affirmation?” - Review the Board and staff process used to review, implement and oversee recommendations of review teams. - Review actions of the Board and staff in ensuring public interest - [cross cutting] Metrics, success criteria. How processes can be verified in an accountable and transparent way. (Olivier suggested that this issue may be considered specifically by WS 4) - [cross cutting] Review methods for continual assessment - [cross cutting] Accountability + Transparency = Legitimacy towards Governments and the larger Internet. How is ICANN outreach doing? Where it going? (Joergen will prepare a short paper regarding Accountaibility +Transaparency = Legitimacy issue) - [cross cutting] Efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy - [cross cutting] Transparency as a default condition - [cross cutting] How ICANN can be effective and efficient while improving full multi-stakeholder participation, accountability and transparency. Questions for staff and Board: 1. What processes have been established for implementing and overseeing recommendations of the review teams? 2. What did you learn? 3. What worked well? What did not work well? What adjustments had to be made? 4. What improvements were made in the subsequent review processes? 5. How did staff and Board ensure that public interest was addressed after the implementation was completed? Please review and give your input so that we can firm up on what additional input we need for the process either from staff, Board or external entities. Kind regards Fiona Asonga