- wp3 - lists.icann.org

ICANN & Governments
by Alice Jansen Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear all, Further to your request for more information on ICANN and governments relationships, we invite your to refer to the page https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/The+GAC+within+ICANN where details can be found. Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

WP3 documents on PC2
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear all, Attached you will find the most recent versions of the PC2 documents drafted in our WP3. I thank you all for your work and feedback. These documents intend to reflect all feedback received in our meetings but may need some final adjustments. Please kindly review them and provide any feedback you may have. Best regards, León

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting | 8 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-3 meeting on 8 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/VKJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document. ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments relationships. - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are options put up by drafter of analysis? ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments. ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community empowerment. Notes Review of drafts Diversity Presentation of the analysis document produced by Carlos. See wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.d… onDate=1444293034000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.d… nDate=1444293034000&api=v2 Feedback: - Bullet points on conflict of interest may be more appropriate in SO/AC accountability paper. ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document. - On inclusion of diversity into ATRT - is silence assent? Splitting it up in two votes may not be representative. --> Worthwhile to consider asking ATRT alumni if this would overburden work. ---> It depends on work in front of ATRT time at a particular time. There was a short timeframe for narrow focus. ATRT2 had additional burden to look at implementation. ATRT should be in position to ensure that this is done by itself or ad hoc group as required. Staff accountability Presentation of the analysis document - see <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountab… %20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountab… 20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2 Feedback: - It might be worth looking at Board to examine if not worth analyzing at all or as part of WS1. - Comment for more transparency on Board management and governments relationships. Fadi suggested that there is a catalogue of public meetings. Having this evidence may address this comment. ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments relationships. - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are options put up by drafter of analysis? ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments. SO/AC Accountability Presentation of the analysis document - see <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56… ccountability%20PC2.docx> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56… countability%20PC2.docx Feedback: - No mention of comment by Jan-Aart Scholte who suggested SO/ACs be subject to IRP. This is not reflected in document. ---> This will be added. - Note structural reviews are conducted as two-part process. First goes to stakeholder then independent examiner. It is a good way moving forward. --> This two step process could be built into that proposal. - Level of detail should be added to structural reviews. Accountability to whom has answer in second report. It is not only to participants but also to community they are designed to serve. Fine-tuning of question may be added if we need to reinforce but should not reopen the question. For question 2 - Jan Aart Scholte's suggestion was helpful. IRP could watch the watchers. - Ambiguity around "community" generates confusion. If message is fine-tuned, objection will be removed. Transparency is not accountability. - Clarify that we did not get concrete options. ---> This clarification will be added. - Proposal about SO/ACs act in community empowerment mechanisms should be referable to IRP. If existing SO/AC refuse inclusion of new SO/AC there would be no way to hold this SO/AC to account ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community empowerment. - Make sure not to forget two bullet points flagged in diversity discussion. - If IRP commenced asserting that it was not within jurisdiction to bring it, it would be a valid defense. Within IRP there is no new action that we would need to take to enact that. - We need to offer specifications as to how proposals will be held to account. Bits of stress tests should be incorporated into discussion of SO/AC accountability. - We should also consider whether something other than (or before) an adversarial arbitration should be put in place when an SO/AC accountability issue arises. Rather than just jumping to an IRP. Next Steps Penholders to include suggestions. Oct 09 - deadline to complete documents Oct 12 - Last comments to be included for Oct 13 call. A.O.B /

1 0

SO/AC accountability draft
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Hi all, In anticipation for our call today I am attaching the draft on SO/AC accountability comments. I suggest the following agenda (which is, of course, open for suggestions or amendments): 1. Welcome 2. Review of drafts by each lead volunteer - Diversity - Staff Accountability - SO/AC Accountability 3. Comments on assessment by the group 4. Next steps 5. AOB Best regards, León

1 0

Fwd: Staff Accountability Comments
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding Jeff’s first draft on Staff accountability for all of us to review and provide feedback, Thanks Jeff for this very quick comeback! Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > Fecha: 7 de octubre de 2015, 3:01:46 p.m. GMT-5 > Para: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Asunto: Staff Accountability Comments > > How does this look? > > There were only nine comments and they were pretty short. If you think this is good, you can forward it on to the rest of WP 3. I cannot be on the next call tomorrow, but will listen to the recording. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > >

3 2

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting | 7 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-3 meeting on 7 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/UqJYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/PC2%20-%20Section… laws_.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444244605640&api=v2> PC2 - Section 4 -Fundamental Bylaws_.pdf (example only, Zuck model) * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/RecommendationsSO… ificationDate=1444244622699&api=v2> RecommendationsSOACacct.pdf * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/PC2%20tool%20-%20… on=1&modificationDate=1444244652993&api=v2> PC2 tool - 24 SeptBTv2.xlsx Notes GS to chair the meeting with LS Diversity - 23 comments received - 19 supportive of fostering diversity - 10 with issues Staff Accountability - 9 comments received - 9 supportive - 4 with issues SO/AC accountability - 15 comments received - 12 supportive - 3 with issues This did not include the responses that were generally supportive of the proposal Volunteers for using the Zuck model for comment analysis Diversity - Carlos Raul, Staff accountability - Jeff Neuman, LS SO/AC accountability - LS, JS GS - we need to work on two tracks 1 - analysis the public comments and 2 - (parallel) dev and revision of the sections of the document relating to these topics.. KD - Walk-through of the Zuck model. GS - The DelBianco addition to the Zuck model is a final section that is more subjective evaluations and comments. GS - The critical element for this WP is SOAC accountability given the current state of discussion in the CCWG. General discussion of SO/AC accountability. GS - best to adjourn now and allow volunteers to proceed with detailed comment analysis. AOB - none

1 0

Fwd: SO/AC ACCT
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Dear colleagues, I apologize for not being able to join the call later today. As you're aware the SO/AC accountability and diversity discussions are on an ever growing trend in terms of intensity within the group since the Board (and other stakeholders) has clarified that many of its concerns were rooted in these issues. As a contribution to the work of this group, in addition to the excellent staff summaries, I share below some personal notes I took during the LA meeting, based on the public comments I read. I hope this is helpful. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- ------------------- Overall community power discussions have led to concerns regarding the accountability of SOs and ACs. This is the core of many of the issues we've been discussing. In this regard, it's worth noting that the following ideas have been raised in the public comment. : 1) there are existing mechanisms in the SO/ACs 2) CCWG 2nd report recommends that regular SO and AC reviews scope is extended to include accountability (external studies, under Board supervision). ACCT is to those who participate + those who they should represent. 3) Suggestions related to SO/AC accountability received in PC2 - extend IRP scope to include challenge of regularity of Single Member decisions (due process) - Set up a conflict of interest Inspector office to investigate / assess - others ? 4) suggestion from the chat - Use same removal process for councillors in SO/ACs. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Final versions for approval
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía July 28, 2015

July 28, 2015

Dear all, With apologies for the delay, attached you will find what I believe are the final versions of the three documents we’ve discussed. Please let me know if I missed anything or if I misrepresented our discussion. Best regards, León

12 25

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
by Malcolm Hutty July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

For the WP3 record, following my intervention in the WP3 session here in Paris. Also I added a third topic: Bruce's suggestion that there be some form of 'Independent Objector' style person empowered to bring an IRP challenge on the grounds of incompatibility with the Bylaws. I'm not endorsing these as fully developed ideas, but they are productive lines of enquiry with real potential to be come very welcome improvements following the development that comes from consideration and discussion. Malcolm Begin forwarded message: > From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net> > Date: 17 July 2015 09:11:22 CEST > To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren(a)kierenmccarthy.com> > Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability > > Dear Chairs, > >> On 17 Jul 2015, at 00:40, Kieren McCarthy <kieren(a)kierenmccarthy.com> wrote: >> >> >> I would argue it is the ability for the existing community to hold hearings in which they are able to compel information and witness testimony. > > Will this idea be considered, or is it deemed too late? When would be an appropriate moment on the agenda to raise it for consideration? > > If we are still open to considering emerging issues, I would also ask that we add Larry Strickling's suggestion that we add text to the Bylaws saying that the only role of the Board in approving a decision is to certify that a community consensus has been reached. (I'm not clear whether Mr Strickling was referring only to the development of gTLD policy or decisions more broadly, but that can be examined if the suggestion is considered). > > Malcolm > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Last version of WP3 diversity
by Sébastien Bachollet July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

2 2