- Ws2-so_ac - lists.icann.org

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #26 - 27 July 2017
by MSSI Secretariat July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #26 – 27 July 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7mnwAw A copy of the action item and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D306EA.5BF43000] Action Items: * Steve: start 2 threads on mailing list, on both topics that were discussed today, ie Transparency item 4 – closing or opening meetings and calls, and Transparency item 5 – what to do with meeting minutes. * Staff: Send revised timeline to the list (see Attachment to complete Action Item. Also linked below under documents) Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66087406/SOAC%20ACCTSUBGRO…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66087406/SOAC%20ACCTSUBGRO…> Decisions: * None Requests: * Members of the subgroup are encouraged to participate in the discussions that will be submitted to the mailing list. Documents Presented * SO/AC Acct Report - redline from v2 to v3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66087406/redline%20from%20…> * SOAC-Acct Report [Plenary Draft 3.1]<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66087406/SOAC-Acct%20Repor…> * WS2 Revised timeline<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66087406/WS2%20Revised%20t…>

1 0

updated draft report, per SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting on 13 July 2017
by Steve DelBianco July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Attached is my attempt at revised report that reflects consensus of our subgroup on our 13-Jul call. I first circulated this on 17-Jul. Attached are doc, pdf, and a redline. A Google Doc version is available here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ACU9BXxqBh0XPYGAZf3Lv2v7WMoyAvb5LN_MRc6…>. Please review and comment before our next call, on 27-Jul at 13 UTC. Also, please review the summary of public comments here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59643284/summary%20of%20pu…>. We’ll discuss on our 27-Jul call and determine how to respond. --Steve From: Brenda Brewer <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:31 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 - 13 July 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 – 13 July 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mrLRAw A copy of the action item and raw caption notes may be found below. Apologies for the delay in sending. Thank you. Action Items: * Rapporteurs will edit the recommendations to reflect the decisions above so this can be considered on the list and at the next meeting. Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> Decisions: * ATRT reviews - The text about ATRT are on p. 7-8 of the report. That's where we would change the recommendation to say that Organizational Reviewer could assess implementation of "Good Practices" We would recommend that this assessment be reflected in the Operattional Standards for the Organizational Reviews (no objections). * No support for any additional accountability to the community by the EC or SOACs * Round Table - Drop the recommendation for an optional round table and return to the original recommendation = we do not recommend a formal MAR, noting that a minority of our group prefers a public gathering of AC/SO leaders (1 objection). * Re IRP to appeal actions or inactions by SOACs.ICANN already give the Ombuds the role to investigating complaints. Actions or inactions. So we would make the recommendation stronger as opposed to saying such as only a bullet. We would clarify it has an appropriate roll to look at action or inaction. I'll just put that into chat. That Ombuds already has a role to action or inaction. I think we should add that the process used by the Ombuds office may be enhanced and or clarified by the work stream two group recommendations reviewing the ombudsman. That's para phrasing a little bit of what Sebastien said. We could not know at this point but we're indicating that role for the Ombuds may be enhanced or clarified by other work stream two process. How does that sound? Requests: * (none)

1 0

updated draft report, per SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting on 13 July 2017
by Steve DelBianco July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Attached is my attempt at revised report that reflects consensus of our subgroup on our 13-Jul call. Attached are doc, pdf, and a redline. A Google Doc version is available here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ACU9BXxqBh0XPYGAZf3Lv2v7WMoyAvb5LN_MRc6…>. Please review and comment before our next call, on 27-Jul-2017. --Steve From: Brenda Brewer <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:31 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 - 13 July 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 – 13 July 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mrLRAw A copy of the action item and raw caption notes may be found below. Apologies for the delay in sending. Thank you. Action Items: * Rapporteurs will edit the recommendations to reflect the decisions above so this can be considered on the list and at the next meeting. Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> Decisions: * ATRT reviews - The text about ATRT are on p. 7-8 of the report. That's where we would change the recommendation to say that Organizational Reviewer could assess implementation of "Good Practices" We would recommend that this assessment be reflected in the Operattional Standards for the Organizational Reviews (no objections). * No support for any additional accountability to the community by the EC or SOACs * Round Table - Drop the recommendation for an optional round table and return to the original recommendation = we do not recommend a formal MAR, noting that a minority of our group prefers a public gathering of AC/SO leaders (1 objection). * Re IRP to appeal actions or inactions by SOACs.ICANN already give the Ombuds the role to investigating complaints. Actions or inactions. So we would make the recommendation stronger as opposed to saying such as only a bullet. We would clarify it has an appropriate roll to look at action or inaction. I'll just put that into chat. That Ombuds already has a role to action or inaction. I think we should add that the process used by the Ombuds office may be enhanced and or clarified by the work stream two group recommendations reviewing the ombudsman. That's para phrasing a little bit of what Sebastien said. We could not know at this point but we're indicating that role for the Ombuds may be enhanced or clarified by other work stream two process. How does that sound? Requests: * (none)

1 0

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 - 13 July 2017
by MSSI Secretariat July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 – 13 July 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mrLRAw A copy of the action item and raw caption notes may be found below. Apologies for the delay in sending. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2FF11.BB0BB800] Action Items: * Rapporteurs will edit the recommendations to reflect the decisions above so this can be considered on the list and at the next meeting. Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64074394/SO-AC%20ACCOUNTAB…> Decisions: * ATRT reviews - The text about ATRT are on p. 7-8 of the report. That's where we would change the recommendation to say that Organizational Reviewer could assess implementation of "Good Practices" We would recommend that this assessment be reflected in the Operattional Standards for the Organizational Reviews (no objections). * No support for any additional accountability to the community by the EC or SOACs * Round Table - Drop the recommendation for an optional round table and return to the original recommendation = we do not recommend a formal MAR, noting that a minority of our group prefers a public gathering of AC/SO leaders (1 objection). * Re IRP to appeal actions or inactions by SOACs.ICANN already give the Ombuds the role to investigating complaints. Actions or inactions. So we would make the recommendation stronger as opposed to saying such as only a bullet. We would clarify it has an appropriate roll to look at action or inaction. I'll just put that into chat. That Ombuds already has a role to action or inaction. I think we should add that the process used by the Ombuds office may be enhanced and or clarified by the work stream two group recommendations reviewing the ombudsman. That's para phrasing a little bit of what Sebastien said. We could not know at this point but we're indicating that role for the Ombuds may be enhanced or clarified by other work stream two process. How does that sound? Requests: * (none)

1 0

Re: [Ws2-so_ac] Agenda for todays WS2-SOAC Accountability call.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 on Thursday, 13 July @ 19:00 UTC.* CALL DETAILS: Link to Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/ mssi-projects <https://participate.icann.org/mssi-projects> Mobile: tel://1-712-770-4218*,,2731447485# Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). Preview attachment CCWAccountability-WS2-Plenary-ICANN After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: *Agenda * 0. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies (2min- SDB, CLO ) Apologies Farzaneh Badii 1. Welcome - Opening Remarks - Our Reconvening and purpose (3-5 min- SDB, CLO) 2. Review (brief) of last meeting (F2F) at ICANN #59 and any Action Items (5-10 min- SDB, CLO) See review notes attached in previous email from Steve del Bianco 3. Discussion and options for any Recommendation text edits or changes (25 -35 min SDB, CLO) - T1 - Track 1 and “Best Practices” Excerpt from last meeting notes - Some prefer a label other than “best practices”. One alternative is “Good Practices” Not much support for having ATRT examine implementation of best practices. Found support for assessing best practice implementation in the Organizational Reviews. Track 1 and SOAC Accountability to the “broader community” Not much support for Board’s comment seeking accountability of the collective SOACs, when acting as the Empowered Community. "EC Decisional Participants should be accountable to the community as a whole, not just their respective SO/AC" No board or staff took my invitation to provide suggestions for how to do this. A Co-chair said we need ICANN-wide conversations, not just decisions within each SOAC. One speaker noted that each AC/SOs will consider broader community when they are deciding on escalation of EC powers. We should address Board comment with an explanation in our report. One speaker suggested Organizational Review also look at cross-accountability. - T2 - Track 2 and [Mutual] Accountability Roundtable Several said don’t do Accountability Round Table – revert to our original draft recommendation. Note that SOACs can share best practices in their leadership emails and calls. Idea to start with the optional Accountability Roundtable, and if it works we could make it an annual requirement. - T3 - Track 3 IRP; Discussion of the question posed, if not IRP then what (if any) mechanism. 4 . Next Steps. (5 min- CLO, SB) - - Public comments and our discussions will be taken on-board by CCWG Accountability WS2 to consider amending our recommendations and then publish a report on results of the public consultation. - CCWG will also need to determine if any changes to our report are significant or not. - If significant changes are recommended, CCWG-Accountability WS2 may have a second public consultation. - If changes are not significant, CCWG-Accountability WS2 can forward final recommendations to Chartering Organizations for approval, and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. - On Sunday, at the F2F Meeting, nobody suggested we need another round of public comments 5. AOB / Meeting Schedule (5 min- CLO) Thursday 20th 0500 UTC, 27th 1300 UTC *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

2 1

FW: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - notes from plenary discussion on 25-Jun-2017
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

(Added a table summarizing public comments we received on our first report, courtesy of Bernie Turcotte and ICANN staff) Thanks to Cheryl for circulating an agenda for today’s call. To help folks prepare, I’m re-sending the notes and attachments from our Johannesburg meeting. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:07 AM To: "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - notes from plenary discussion on 25-Jun-2017 To: members of the CCWG sub team for SO/AC Accountability in Work Stream 2 (wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284>) On Sunday in Johannesburg, we discussed with the CCWG plenary the results of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en> on our first draft report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improv…>. Cheryl and I used the attached slides and speaking notes to present. (Thanks to Bernie for starting the slide draft) Discussion lasted about an hour. Chat transcript is at bottom of this email. Some notes from the discussion and presentation and next steps: Track 1 and “Best Practices” Some prefer a label other than “best practices”. One alternative is “Good Practices” Not much support for having ATRT examine implementation of best practices. Found support for assessing best practice implementation in the Organizational Reviews. Track 1 and SOAC Accountability to the “broader community” Not much support for Board’s comment seeking accountability of the collective SOACs, when acting as the Empowered Community. "EC Decisional Participants should be accountable to the community as a whole, not just their respective SO/AC" No board or staff took my invitation to provide suggestions for how to do this. A Co-chair said we need ICANN-wide conversations, not just decisions within each SOAC. One speaker noted that each AC/SOs will consider broader community when they are deciding on escalation of EC powers. We should address Board comment with an explanation in our report. One speaker suggested Organizational Review also look at cross-accountability. Track 2 and [Mutual] Accountability Roundtable Several said don’t do Accountability Round Table – revert to our original draft recommendation. Note that SOACs can share best practices in their leadership emails and calls. Idea to start with the optional Accountability Roundtable, and if it works we could make it an annual requirement. Next Steps: Public comments and our discussions today will be taken on-board by CCWG Accountability WS2 to consider amending our recommendations and then publish a report on results of the public consultation. CCWG will also need to determine if any changes to our report are significant or not. If significant changes are recommended, CCWG-Accountability WS2 may have a second public consultation. If changes are not significant, CCWG-Accountability WS2 can forward final recommendations to Chartering Organizations for approval, and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. On Sunday, nobody suggested we need another round of public comments. We will re-convene our sub team for a few conference calls to discuss next steps. Schedule invitation to follow. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Chat transcript: Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:03) "Good Practices" sound better, sounds more sincere Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:03) Sec 4.4 on Organizational Reviews: The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders. Kavouss Arasteh 6: (11:08) I also recommand to endeavour to meet the concerns expressed by the Board Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:08) You can find the Board comment on these SO/AC accountability recommendations here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-soac-accountability- 14apr17/2017-May/000007.html Kavouss Arasteh: (11:12) In reply to Alan, I would say that is is a well known practice to say, " Best Practice " is understood and thden define that Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:14) that ICANN meeting planning staff take the following steps prior to each Annual General Meeting (AGM): (p. 9) ICANN staff should ask the chairs of all SO/ACs whether they want to hold an Accountability Roundtable to discuss SO/AC accountability. If a majority of SO/AC chairs agree, ICANN staff would schedule a 90-minute public session at the next AGM, open to all SO/AC/Group chairs, and joined by ICANN CEO and Board Chair. The ICANN board chair would designate a moderator for the session. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:14) Agree with Malcolm. Against MART for those reasons. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:14) As for mutual accountability; let us make it optional first, if it works well and at thenext review we could decide diffrently such as a need to do that matthew shears: (11:16) there may be occassion when sharing practices may be a useful exercise then we might consider that the ART (not MART) be an optional measure subject to the approval of the SO/AC Chairs, for example. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:16) In an earlier posting (a long time ago) I suggested Mutual Transparency Round Table. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:17) Perhaps the issue of doing it pin public comment to be separated from the main issue Malcolm Hutty: (11:18) "Roundtable discussion on cross-cutting issues" would be more what I had in mind. We need to get away from any sense that this is a body that SOAC leaders report to or need to satisfy Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:19) This conflict concerning mutual accountability could become unimportant, if on the whole the Community processes gradually move away from SILOs to Cross Community processes Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:21) We have done that for the use of the Community Powers, Steve - agreed. It's the broader picture of the organisation as a whole that we need to build into the process somewhere, and that I thought the MAR might be able to help with. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:22) For e.g. if we work towards making a 4 day meeting with one and a half days of independant AC/SO schedules and two and a half days of Cross Community meetings. Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:23) Thanks for that clarification, Jordan Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:23) Siva - yes the new meeting approach is helpful in breaking people out of the silos Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) Such an overall shift would postively reflect on the independant AC/SO accountability process, as each AC / SO bring their independant work invariably to the Cross Communitty table. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) or a Cross Community House Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Doing Mutual accountability on optional basis certainly would help but whether do it publicly or non publicly is another issue as I explained

1 0

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - notes from plenary discussion on 25-Jun-2017
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

To: members of the CCWG sub team for SO/AC Accountability in Work Stream 2 (wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284>) On Sunday in Johannesburg, we discussed with the CCWG plenary the results of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en> on our first draft report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improv…>. Cheryl and I used the attached slides and speaking notes to present. (Thanks to Bernie for starting the slide draft) Discussion lasted about an hour. Chat transcript is at bottom of this email. Some notes from the discussion and presentation and next steps: Track 1 and “Best Practices” Some prefer a label other than “best practices”. One alternative is “Good Practices” Not much support for having ATRT examine implementation of best practices. Found support for assessing best practice implementation in the Organizational Reviews. Track 1 and SOAC Accountability to the “broader community” Not much support for Board’s comment seeking accountability of the collective SOACs, when acting as the Empowered Community. "EC Decisional Participants should be accountable to the community as a whole, not just their respective SO/AC" No board or staff took my invitation to provide suggestions for how to do this. A Co-chair said we need ICANN-wide conversations, not just decisions within each SOAC. One speaker noted that each AC/SOs will consider broader community when they are deciding on escalation of EC powers. We should address Board comment with an explanation in our report. One speaker suggested Organizational Review also look at cross-accountability. Track 2 and [Mutual] Accountability Roundtable Several said don’t do Accountability Round Table – revert to our original draft recommendation. Note that SOACs can share best practices in their leadership emails and calls. Idea to start with the optional Accountability Roundtable, and if it works we could make it an annual requirement. Next Steps: Public comments and our discussions today will be taken on-board by CCWG Accountability WS2 to consider amending our recommendations and then publish a report on results of the public consultation. CCWG will also need to determine if any changes to our report are significant or not. If significant changes are recommended, CCWG-Accountability WS2 may have a second public consultation. If changes are not significant, CCWG-Accountability WS2 can forward final recommendations to Chartering Organizations for approval, and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption. On Sunday, nobody suggested we need another round of public comments. We will re-convene our sub team for a few conference calls to discuss next steps. Schedule invitation to follow. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Chat transcript: Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:03) "Good Practices" sound better, sounds more sincere Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:03) Sec 4.4 on Organizational Reviews: The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders. Kavouss Arasteh 6: (11:08) I also recommand to endeavour to meet the concerns expressed by the Board Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:08) You can find the Board comment on these SO/AC accountability recommendations here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-soac-accountability- 14apr17/2017-May/000007.html Kavouss Arasteh: (11:12) In reply to Alan, I would say that is is a well known practice to say, " Best Practice " is understood and thden define that Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:14) that ICANN meeting planning staff take the following steps prior to each Annual General Meeting (AGM): (p. 9) ICANN staff should ask the chairs of all SO/ACs whether they want to hold an Accountability Roundtable to discuss SO/AC accountability. If a majority of SO/AC chairs agree, ICANN staff would schedule a 90-minute public session at the next AGM, open to all SO/AC/Group chairs, and joined by ICANN CEO and Board Chair. The ICANN board chair would designate a moderator for the session. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:14) Agree with Malcolm. Against MART for those reasons. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:14) As for mutual accountability; let us make it optional first, if it works well and at thenext review we could decide diffrently such as a need to do that matthew shears: (11:16) there may be occassion when sharing practices may be a useful exercise then we might consider that the ART (not MART) be an optional measure subject to the approval of the SO/AC Chairs, for example. Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (11:16) In an earlier posting (a long time ago) I suggested Mutual Transparency Round Table. CW Kavouss Arasteh: (11:17) Perhaps the issue of doing it pin public comment to be separated from the main issue Malcolm Hutty: (11:18) "Roundtable discussion on cross-cutting issues" would be more what I had in mind. We need to get away from any sense that this is a body that SOAC leaders report to or need to satisfy Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:19) This conflict concerning mutual accountability could become unimportant, if on the whole the Community processes gradually move away from SILOs to Cross Community processes Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:21) We have done that for the use of the Community Powers, Steve - agreed. It's the broader picture of the organisation as a whole that we need to build into the process somewhere, and that I thought the MAR might be able to help with. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:22) For e.g. if we work towards making a 4 day meeting with one and a half days of independant AC/SO schedules and two and a half days of Cross Community meetings. Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (11:23) Thanks for that clarification, Jordan Jordan Carter (.nz): (11:23) Siva - yes the new meeting approach is helpful in breaking people out of the silos Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) Such an overall shift would postively reflect on the independant AC/SO accountability process, as each AC / SO bring their independant work invariably to the Cross Communitty table. Sivasubramanian M @ 59: (11:24) or a Cross Community House Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Doing Mutual accountability on optional basis certainly would help but whether do it publicly or non publicly is another issue as I explained

1 1

Summary of SOAC-Accountability discussion at CCWG Plenary
by Steve DelBianco April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

We had a 1-hour discussion with the CCWG plenary today in Copenhagen. Here’s our summary of feedback received during first reading of our draft report: Track 1: Best Practices First reading revealed no objections to our recommendations, but some possible changes: Our draft Exec Summary says we “recommend best practices that should be considered …”. Speakers offered alternatives such as “we urge adoption of these best practices..” or “we encourage implementation of …” -- ASO reminded us to clarify we are only talking about AC/SO accountability "within the scope of ICANN activities”, since NRO and IETF exist outside of ICANN, too. -- Outreach and Participation: consider adding diversity dimension to best practices. Perhaps we suggest incorporating recommendations anticipated from the Diversity group of WS2. -- Transparency Recc #4: add appropriate reasons for an AC/SO meeting to be “closed” to members: (list provided by Michael Karanicolas) * discussion of trade secrets or sensitive commercial information whose disclosure would cause harm to a person or organization's legitimate commercial or financial interests or competitive position. * discussion of internal strategic planning whose disclosure would likely compromise the efficacy of the the chosen course. * discussion of information whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, such as medical records. * discussion of information whose disclosure has the potential to harm the security and stability of the Internet. * discussion of information that, if disclosed, would be likely to endanger the life, health, or safety of any individual or materially prejudice the administration of justice. — Finn Peterson noted that Transparency Recc 5 and Participation Recc 4 both address minutes of member meetings, and should be more consistent. Transparency Recc 5: Minutes for all membership meetings should be published. Participation Recc 4: For any meetings, be they closed to members only or open to anyone, the members have to be able to access minutes and/or recordings, subject to exceptions for confidential matters. — Jan Sholte and several others noted that we could recommend something stronger than just to "consider” these best practices. We answered that our group was not likely to recommend these best practices be placed into ICANN bylaws. Moreover, our 2017 list of best practices would become outdated before long. No decision on what to do here. — Some commenters want to see a continued focus on SOAC Accountability after the CCWG concludes. Indeed, on page 2 of our draft report we noted Recommendation 10 of the CCWG Final Proposal (link<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…>): In Work Stream 2: Include the subject of SO and AC accountability as part of the work on the Accountability and Transparency Review process We could amend our report to recommend that future ATRTs examine SO/AC accountability, transparency, participation, and outreach. This could be a new item in the Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en>, at Sec 4.6 b, where potential ATRT issues are listed. Or, we could recommend that ICANN staff add this item to the procedures for ATRT, which would not require a bylaws change. Note that we would not refer future ATRTs back to our 2017 list of best practices. Instead, we’d expect that future ATRTs would undertake a review and develop recommendations similar to what our group did in 2016-17. Track 2: Mutual Accountability Roundtable (page 31) First reading revealed significant objection to our recommendation on MARs. Several speakers prefer a formal discussion of SOAC accountability, at least once each year. We could amend our report to recommend something like this: Prior to each Annual General Meeting (AGM), ICANN staff should ask the chairs of all AC/SOs whether they want to hold a Mutual Accountability Roundtable to discuss SO/AC accountability with respect to activities within ICANN’s scope. If a majority of AC/SO chairs agree to hold the Mutual Accountability Roundtable: ICANN staff would schedule a 90-minute open session at the next AGM, open to all AC/SO/Group chairs, and joined by ICANN CEO and Board Chair. The ICANN board chair would designate a moderator for the session. Track 3: IRP (page 32) First reading revealed no objections or changes to Track 3 recommendations. Avri agrees we should mention the Ombudsman as an alternative, but says we should not recommend that the new ICANN Complaints Officer is an alternative to IRP. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

3 3

Please Respond: Survey of the ICANN Ombudsman Office
by MSSI Secretariat April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the Rapporteur for WS2 Subgroup 'Ombudsman', Sébastien Bachollet, we would like to encourage you and your peers to participate in the survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> on the ICANN Ombudsman Office. The survey will take approximately 5-10min. The survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> is part of the ongoing assessment of the ICANN Ombudsman Office and it has been designed in cooperation with the WS2 Subgroup 'Ombudsman'. The survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> is available in 6 UN languages and links to the translations, as well as instructions on how to respond to the non-English versions, are provided on the survey wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. If you have questions on the assessment of the Ombudsman Office, including the survey, please contact reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org>. Best wishes, MSSI Link to the survey: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3462816/ICANN[surveygizmo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> Link to the survey wiki page with translations: https://community.icann.org/x/vc3RAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> ________________________________ Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFAw…> [cid:image001.png@01D2B1E5.FA31A3B0]

1 0

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment. The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are: remove the word “ranks” on page 7. remove the word “mutual” on page 32. The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek community input: A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is held accountable to the other SO/ACs. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>" <ws2-so_ac(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-so_ac@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017 To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen. Including: Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN. For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement…” Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best practices have been implemented. Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs. Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and minutes Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices. We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1 Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd reading on 29-Mar. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

1 0