Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith, Meeting #5 - 23NOV16 will be available here shortly: https://community.icann.org/x/nI7DAw 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 WS2 - Guidelines for Good Faith Subgroup | Meeting #5 | Wednesday, 23 November @ 19:00 UTC Notes (including relevant parts of chat): I. Introduction, SOI, roll call Lori Shulman: We have received a response from ICANN Legal as to a possible conflict of interest with them reviewing our documents. The essentially have said no and I agree with this response for the moment. Would like to reach out to Sam Eisner on drafting questions given discussions from Hyderabad - the issue of verifiable facts leads to cause which generates concern. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That could be a nice "informal" approach Lori Thomas Rickert: Agree with CLO. Review of WS1 work around removing a sitting ICANN Director. We cannot have a list of reasons - we are looking for guidelines to be used such as the language - for no cause - removing a Director by not using discriminatory language or insulting. Also if facts are stated or references made these should be verifiable. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and Sam is an excellent asset and great resource... good to work with IMO II. Annotated First Draft Guidelines - Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXLh-YGFQ-XBKG-2b72oSG8rgXgfMsfPBvywK8BS... Lori Shulman: Possibly need to remove a,b,c from 2 or at the very least clarify b. As to b we need to be clear on expectations of Board members. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see the points raised on that 'cause' issue raised by Sam and see that just a modified 2C.can work becoming an a. Alan Greenberg: Its not an issue of fairness - under California law they can be removed for any reason. Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: One test we have to pass is that we do not undo WS1 recommendations. Therefore the question of fairness, if at all, is not relevant as this is a requirement from WS1. Julf Helsingius: I am confused - I assumed anyone could *suggest* a board member can be removed, but to actually remove a board member you still need a majority of the empowered community? Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: The Board members know the rules of the game and they know they can be removed at any time for any reason. Julf Helsingius: And yes, as a board member in a bunch of companies, I can be removed at any point if shareholders don't like me. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Agree with AG. A director should not be surprized that an SOAC or the Empowered Community can remove them for no reason. Alan Greenberg: Pretty hard to imagine that this would occur without any warning for a director. Trying to remove a director from the ALAC would be a long and very public process. As a Nomcom director it has to be public. SOACs have to make a decision as a group this is not one person making a decision in secret. Lori Schulman: maybe we need to concentrate on process vs causes. If a reason is given it should be fact based and verifiable. Alan Greenberg: To use my purple pants rationale, if in fact the person never wore pants that can be considered purple, then I would not be indemnified... Lori Schulman: We need to dial down the language on cause and we need to focus on process. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: support this. Alan Greenberg: we cannot hope to have detailed processes for SOACs each of these is very different. Bernard Turcotte: AG looking at very have level playbook or dos and donts that would apply to all to add depth and colour to the removal process agreed to in WS1. III. Proposed changes to annotated draft based on feedback from Hyderabad? IV. AOB Lori Schulman: Action Items for LS reach out to SE. Reread WS1 processes. Redo a version of this draft. I have two weeks of intensive travels coming up. Should we have another call before the end of the year? confirm December 14th meeting. Still expecting a comment from the Board as promised. Lito Ibarra: I have been talking about this at the Board and things seem ok.