Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith, Meeting #9 - 25 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/o4fRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux@icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DgMFAg&c...> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Attendance Lori Schulman: (6 participants at start of meeting). 2. Changes to SOI (none) 3. Discussion of Current Version of Draft Report including conclusions from ICANN Legal Lori Schulman: ICANN Legal has responded and I have included this in the report and added two footnotes. I have answered SL questions on the list and believe these were covered in our earlier discussions. Lori Schulman: (going through document). Exec Summary. Alan Greenberg: Decisional Participants - participants should be capitalized the same everywhere. Additionally, we are not providing indemnity to Decisional Participants - its the representatives etc (people) and this should be amended everywhere. SO AC councils or equivalent .... or reps to the empowered community. Lori Schulman: Will include the definition of Decisional Participant in the Exec summary and then will refer to the definition elsewhere. Alan Greenberg: recommendation 2A - want to clear up who is doing the investigation. B Members of SO's - cannot work for the gNSO which has thousands of members - use wording from above re Councils - C does a secret ballot meet the requirements of transparent? need to clear up. Page 4 "working group" is a technical term in ICANN may be better to simply use Group. avri doria: 'entire members' doesn't even make sense as a stand along phrase. how do we define a partial member. probably enough to say the membership. Alan Greenberg: Could there be a problem with divisions of opinion within SOs and ACs as each SO/AC puts specific processes in place, and issues over whether or not they are according to the set of guidelines? Would normal consensus procedures be adequate to resolve such differences here or is there need for something beyond the individual SOs and ACs to be involved? Alan Greenberg: My thoughts are that since an SO/AC has to build a coalition to remove nomcom appointees, it would be up to the other SO/AC's to determine adequacy of any procedures. I believe that we may have touched on this in earlier discussions. Lori Schulman: Discussion of SL questions and responses by LS. Alan Greenberg: uncertain if SL is talking about within an SOAC or between SOACs. Internally its the SOAC's issue. Between it is the usual mechanisms to come to an agreement. there is no formal process for SO and Ac's to resolve issues between themselves - if they want something to happen they will need to find a way. We may have overlooked the need for a secretariat for the empowered community. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): not our job to describe the collaborative processes just refer to the requirements for it Avri Doria: may not need a secretariat - chairs of SOs and ACs should be encouraged to work together. Issue about "turthful" caution. Concerned how truthful gets adjudicated. Also have problem with SHOULD - when I hear should means it is not always required. Alan Greenberg: AD comments have merit. Truth is not absolute but if you make the assertion you need to believe it. What are the right legal words for this. avri doria: well if the purpose is indemnification, we need to be legalistic. of course i am not a lawyer. Lito Ibarra: Avri, the interpretation of the word "Should" is why I asked if ALL of the conditions below (1 to 6) need to be satisfied, if applicable. Lori Schulman: Valid criticism. Would not object to deleting it and re-drafting. avri doria: btw, no comment i make is a 'die in the ditch' comment. Lori Schulman: SHOULD is related to the fact that directors can be removed for ANY reason. given we have so many IF's in the specific points we could change SHOULD to MUST. Alan Greenberg: But if the person has never been seen in purple pants, and you have no evidence, it is NOT a valid reason avri doria: so it is for any true reason. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): written and verifiable Avri Doria: "detailed in writng" comment. Lito Ibarra: Although English is not my mother tongue, "must" is a good option Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): must works for me avri doria: for 2b recommend replacing entire members with membership Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup... believed to be...... avri doria: 2c recommend replacing transparent voting with transparent use of a voting method Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): then validation can also include All Lito Ibarra: Yes to "believed to be..." Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If you go to Beleived to Be covers "allegations" but does not have to be typed in our recommendations. this provides "wiggle room". "Purple pants" analogy. Lori Schulman: So this is not ready for submission for a first reading by the plenary as it needs to be edited per the comments today. If I make these changes could we approve it over the coming week so it could be sent to the plenary? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): polishing from today's work required list review then call for consensus pre 1st works Julf Helsingius: Works for me too Cheryl Langdon-Orr: 72 hours for any substantive changes. Julf Helsingius: I agree! Lito Ibarra: 72 hours is ok avri doria: yeah, one of these, silence is consent 72 hours. they can comment during the mtg. Lori Schulman: I will make the changes today and put this up on the list. Any substantive changes have to be brought up on the list by 23:59 Sunday. If none this will be the version for a first reading by the plenary. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Great group to work with and kudos to Lori for doing should an incredible group. Adjourned.