Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith, Meeting #2 - 28 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=62390529 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<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ Notes Rapporteur: Lori Schulman 1. Administration Overview of the working methods and use of WS1 recommendations and NTIA criteria to assist in determining standards and recommendations from the group. 2. Brainstorming for Guidelines for Standard of Conduct a. How are members removed now? Has anyone ever been removed? Discussion - has anyone every been removed and is the Board the only entity that can remove a member. Up until now only the Board has the right to remove members but they have never removed anyone under the new process the community can also remove members. Do not want to create a cumbersome process and want to keep inline with duties prescribed in the law for Board members and the basic standard may not be enough for ICANN as they may need to be held to a higher standard. It was noted that the Board has incorporated some guidance on how it would consider removal of Board members, such as within the Board Code of Conduct and the Guidelines for that Code of Conduct Each SO/ACs will set own processes to address the process that they will undertake. Trying to put some words around what it means to do something in good faith. Might be a broad standard that applies to the entire community and that people must verify the facts. Is there a standard that applies to the entire community? or does the action come up from the SO/ACs and the process that they set. It was noted from the chat - think we need a degree of expectations not wide variance in the AC/SO processes though Alan thus 'Guidelines' and : sited expectations of the AC or SO for their Members conduct and role not being met' should be OK to action and "without cause per se Need to set up expectation guidelines for SO/ACs to look through as part of their own processes. Might be worth while to establish some guideline principles for fare and reasonable conduct. Should note that SO/AC should note decisions made by formal processes, including the rational for the decision as well as to appoint the formal spokespersons for the group. Note that this could mean that each SO/AC must have a formal process to bring a claim forward, rules of procedure by which they will make decisions to take a formal action. Every SO/AC has a decision making process. and the process needs to include a means to document the decision made and the steps taken to reach the decision. The process should be aligned with the process used to select the groups board member should be similar to the one use to take action to remove a Board member. There may be some exceptions to the applying such a principle, Noncom was used as a example. Should not be too prescriptive in the process. Note - the charged always has a right of response and has the right to end the process by resigning (are we sure there was never any thought of Board on Board removal - or just none ever got all the way ) The Board would still retain the ability to remove a director if convicted of a crime b. What good practices are we trying to promote when making a claim? Discussion: AOB ACTION ITEM Lori will send to the list a summary of the items discussed and possible approaches that could be undertaken.