- Ws2-so_ac - lists.icann.org

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 23 MAR 17
by MSSI Secretariat March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #24 – 23 MAR 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BqPRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. 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=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ Notes (includes relevant text from chat) 0. Call Administration 1. Review of AI's from call #23 on March 2nd https://community.icann.org/x/3qDRAw Note to all - the latest version is named Plenary Draft 1.0 2. Update from Plenary Meeting March 10th Cheryl - very pleased with the discussion with the Plenary. Also, the slides that were used during the plenary session will be posted to the wiki. 3. Discussion, current (draft 1.3) documentation updates, readings and review. Review and discuss updates to our draft documentation - the Consolidated Draft Report after its 1st reading and Plenary discussion, see emails to our list and CCWG pre and post our recent meeting CPH. Steve: As most of us on the call were present we don't need to go into too much detail, but there was a good conversation at the plenary on March 10. For track 1, there were no big issues, but a few items were noted. Some interest to strengthen language around best practices, to change "recommend best practices" to "encourage implementation of..." No opposition to this change. Second point is to clarify that we are only talking about AC/SO accountability "within the scope of ICANN activity." Steve asked for others to point out where this language is in the current draft, and if not found language would be included in executive summary. No opposition to this change. Next was topic of Diversity and whether we should incorporate recommendations anticipated from the Diversity group of WS2. Alan - I don't think we should, as it would be redundant to other areas ICANN has already stated regarding diversity best practices. Kavouss - "is there difficulty to add diversity to the best practices?" It is taking time for the diversity group to establish this, so should we add it here? Steve - don't see difficulty, it just wasn't in our initial draft. And raises the question if we include this is it our version of diversity standards, or the other diversity group or ICANN in general (which haven't been posted yet) Alan - we don't know how such a statement of diversity best practices would necessarily be applicable to specific constituency groups. Jorge Villa (ASO): The diversity topic can be managed in a different way between SO/AC. If we include a recommendation, it must be very general recommendation Cheryl - there seems to be some rational for some reference with regards to outreach and participation, but that would vary across the constituency groups and would necessarily be a general statement, a single overall sentence and not a specific best practice. "Diversity would be a best practice within an SO/AC and may enable them reaching broader diversity dimensions." Kavouss - supports the general statement, this is consistent with similar statements made in several other areas (GAC, others) Steve - taking it under consideration to include general diversity language regarding outreach and participation. Alan - shouldn't we flag this as one of the items that we need to make sure matches up with other subgroup efforts when we pull all recommendations together? Steve - agreed and will include. Jorge Villa (ASO): I think that trying to resume diversity between SO/ACs might be a daunting task, The diversity concepts important for a group may differ from others. I think that maybe in further versions we might include something if we are completely clear of how this concept will be managed between SO/ACs Steve - agree in general, but the language as we've discussed is broad enough it shouldn't create an issue. Transparency Recommendation #4 - add appropriate reasons for an AC/SO meeting to be closed. Michael Karanicolas offered up language for 5 reasons. comments of suggestions? Alan - #4 seems insufficient. We should get some wider language from SSAC (Alan offered to follow up with SSAC) Steve - I think this language is often used. Alan - ok, if so then i don't have a problem. Christopher - appreciate their objectives but the implementation of many of their recommendations are problematic. I think the language is too specific but if this is what the group came up with then ok. Kavouss - don't think we need to add anything, it is sufficiently broad and we ask for clarification for other reasons as needed that would be appropriate. Alan Greenberg: If we use "normally" or some such wording, I have no problem with the list. Cheryl - what we can do is provide this back to the plenary and emphasize that this is an example list rather than an exclusive list. Transparency Recc. #5 both address minutes of meetings and we should be more consistent. Cheryl - I think we should bring the language from both recommendations together so they can be more consistent. But we should avoid wordsmithing the language on the call. Steve - inconsistency is meetings be available to members or available to all (published). Alan - in transparency recommendation it refers to minutes, but many calls don't have "minutes" and we might want to use more general language (meeting notes). Closed sessions are rare in ALAC but in the event they occur we keep no records. Steve - in the BC, closed meetings are then closed to members. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Minutes / Notes and any recordings as the 'term' where Minutes is used now perhaps Kavouss - two words here are carefully used - "published" and "minutes." Language more commonly used now are "made available" and/or "posted" and "notes" instead of "minutes" Steve - we need to come back to this one later, as we need to move on to the other points of input. NOTE - in the chat the following language was offered up: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Participation Recc 4 : For any meetings, be they closed to members only or open to anyone, members have to be able to access all records of the meeting, subject to exceptions for confidentiality matters. Transparency Recc 5: Notes, Minutes or Records for all membership meetings should be made publically available. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Does that language work for the Finn Peterson point re consistency? Next topic is regarding continued focus on SOAC accountability after the CCWG concludes. We could amend our report to recommend that future ATRTs examine SO/AC accountability. But this would increase that review team's efforts. Alan - I think we could add this as an option within ATRT to review best practices for SOACs, but to charge them with reviewing SOAC accountability is too far, as this is something that the individual org reviews addresses. Steve - we can also suggest to Plenary that we are recommending one bylaws change at Sec 4.6 b. Next topic is Track 2: Mutual Accountability Roundtable. Steve - There was significant concern about our first reading recommendation. Many other ideas were offered by members of the plenary. One idea brought forth would be to, prior to each AGM, ask the chairs of AC/SOs whether they want to hold a roundtable. Alan - two different groups are referenced here - SO/AC chairs and then SO/AC/Group chairs, which is a much larger group. But I support the language. Steve - before we agree to this suggestion, I asked several leaders of GNSO constituencies, and stakeholder groups and they were firmly against this idea. Alan - I’m good with the language we have, and having it optional is good because as i stated in Copenhagen it is a good idea but I don't think ICANN isn't ready for it. Kavouss - I think this is a good idea, and being optional is good. But I think it should be open to everyone, not just these people noted in the language. Cheryl - one last point - are we ok on IRP latest comment from Avri to NOT include the complaints officer in the document language. Next steps are to incorporate these changes and move forward with a next Plenary draft for the March 29th call. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule none currently listed for April onwards. To be discussed. Master Schedule is here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… Next step is to reach out to the broader group regarding timing of future calls. 5. AOB and review of any AI's. None

1 0

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 23, 2017

March 23, 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

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 22, 2017

March 22, 2017

To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Executive Summary: The SO/AC Accountability project for Work Stream 2 had its genesis at an early stage of the CCWG-Accountability track, when SO/AC representatives insisted on new powers to hold the ICANN corporation accountable to the global internet community. ICANN board members and staff then asked, “What about SO/AC accountability?“ And as one of our independent experts asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Those questions led to a creation of a Work Stream 2 project to review and recommend improvements to accountability, transparency, and participation within ICANN SOs, ACs, and Subgroups. This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group reached quick consensus: each AC and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each AC/SO was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws. This conclusion was the basis for Track 1 of our work: reviewing accountability, transparency, and participation with respect to the designated community of each SO/AC and Subgroup. We were keen to examine the extent to which SO/AC/Subgroups were reaching out to, and open to, members of their designated community who were not yet participating. In Track 1 we recommend 25 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We are not recommending changes to the ICANN bylaws to reflect these best practices, although we believe that future Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) should examine implementation of these best practices among AC/SO/Subgroups. In Track 2, we considered the suggestion for a “Mutual Accountability Roundtable,” originally described as a concept where “multiple actors are accountable to each other”. That concept clashed with the fundamental consensus that ICANN SOs and ACs are only accountable to the designated community they were created to serve and represent. On this basis, we recommend that a Mutual Accountability Roundtable not be formally implemented by ICANN. Track 3 was where we assessed whether the new Independent Review Process (IRP) should also become a tool to challenge AC and SO activities. On this question, we conclude that while the IRP could be made applicable by amending bylaws significantly, the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and  expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction.

1 1

Agenda for SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 on Thursday, 23rd February @ 05:00 UTC.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 22, 2017

March 22, 2017

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #25 on Thursday, 23rd February @ 05:00 UTC.* *CALL DETAILS:Link to Adobe Connect:* https://participate.i cann.org/mssi-projects *Mobile: tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535# <//1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535#>* *Agenda:* 0. Call Administration (2 min CLO) 1. Review of AI's from call #23 on March 2nd (2 min) CLO) https://community.icann.org/x/3qDRAw 2. Update from Plenary Meeting March 10th (#24). (5 min CLO ) 3. Discussion, current (draft 1.32) documentation updates, readings and review. (45 min CLO/SDB) * Review and discuss updates to our draft documentation - the Consolidated Draft Report after its 1st reading and Plenary discussion, see emails to our list and CCWG pre and post our recent meeting CPH. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 min CLO) · none currently listed for April onwards. To be discussed. Master Schedule is here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (3 min CLO)

3 2

Summary slides for CCWG Plenary
by Steve DelBianco March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Colleagues — attached are several summary slides we will present at the CCWG plenary today, during first reading of our draft report. Will report afterwards on the discussion that happens here. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:23 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>> Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017 To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 02 MAR 17
by MSSI Secretariat March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #23 – 02 MAR 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/3qDRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. 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=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ Notes Notes: 8 Participants at start of call. 0. Call Administration Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Seun audio only. any updates to SOIs? (none). Any changes to agenda? (none). 1. Review of any AI's from call #21 on February 16th Cheryl Langdon-Orr - asked for more contributions to the documents. Thanks to all for those. 2. Any Updates: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ? (none). Plenary met a few hours ago and would encourage all who did not attend to listen to the recordings. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations, readings and review. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Looking for polishing contributions. Looking forward to submitting the report for 3 March so it can have a first reading on 10 March. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's Farzaneh Badii - there is nothing new in this document and it has been included in the consolidated document by SDB. b) Review and discuss (as 1st reading for the WT) the Consolidated Draft Report Steve DelBianco - As promised the consolidated document was distributed on Monday with V1.0. 24 hours ago we generated a V1.1 version. NPOC members have been updating the document but not all there comments are consistent between themselves - so this seems to be their contribution if they have not answered the questionnaire. Only two left have not answered RySG and RSSAC. SB asked where he shoud focus Ombudsman related issues and have pointed him to the relevant sections. The most important part for this group is to come to consensus on the recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would be doing the Consolodated doc in reverse to ensure the leat discussed part get more time for discussion, but I see that is 'just me' Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): At least 2 of the three threads have been well covered in the oast so we should be ;-) able to cover those off almost 'pro forma' Steve DelBianco - Any general comments? (none). Going through the recommendations (starting page 9). Alan Greenberg - Should document may be best to say SHOULD CONSIDER DOCUMENTING given it may not be applciable to all those groups. Steve DelBianco - The word CONSIDER is included earlier in the text and could be added in each recommendation. Could also include WHERE APPLICABLE (support no objection). Farzaneh Badii - Re AG points - challenging results of the election is fine but DECISONS seems much too broad. Steve DelBianco - These were the questions used in the questionnaire and the SOACs have responded to. given we are including WHERE APPLICABLE would allow an out anyways. Farzaneh Badii: that’s fine then Tatiana Tropina: Same concerns as FB and AG - maybe we can ask them WHICH decisions can be challenged. It’s up to SOACs to decide which ones can be and clearly document this. On the second recommendation - have to be clear it is WHERE APPLICABLE. Steve DelBianco - (repeating the caveats in front of every recommendation). Aan Greenberg: do not share cocnerns of FB and TT because of the caveats and lets not wordsmith this now. Farzaneh Badii: but then they might cherry pick Farzaneh Badii: and say it's not applicable here or there Tatiana Tropina: Oh this is it. I meant type of decisions and Alan means processes Steve DelBianco - next transparency on page 13 - 6 recommendations that have been well discussed. Comments? Farzaneh Badii - re rec. 6 all comments including correspondence - Steve DelBianco - this is current practice and making it a best practice. Alan Greenberg - there is some correspondence that is confidential and cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - seeking input on this to fix. Onto participation page 19 - 6 recommendations. (no comments). Onto outreach. Alan Greenberg - Re rec 4 - are minutes and or recordings of closed meeting should be accessible to members? Steve DelBianco - correct. Alan Greenberg - again we need exceptions - sometimes the ALAC discusses individuals for nominations and this cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - will add subject to exceptions and confidential matters. Onto Outreach recommendations page 23 - 5 recommendations. (no comments). Last section Update to procedures 1 recommendation on page 25. Farzaneh Badii - Outreach groups have to be small or you cannot decide anything. Seun Ojedeji: do not agree on putting a size comment in. Steve DelBianco - insert something along the lines of "appropriate size'. On to tract 2 Mutual Accountability Table - our conclusion is it is not recommended for formal implementation. Any objections to this recommendation (none). Onto Tract 3 - Does IRP apply to SOAC activities (page 29) - is not applicable and should not be made applicable. Any objections (none). Will take these comments and circulate a new version in the next few days. Alan Greenberg - there will be minor updates to my contribution but these should not be critical if they do not make it into the first reading document. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Second reading of this document will be made on the 2 March call. Important to have good participation. Action Item - Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it and have proper comments for the call. Also if you will be present at the face to face please advise. Farzaneh Badii: I will send reminders to the list to read the doc 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • 10 March full day CCWG F2F at ICANN58 Copenhagen • Other dates and times after CPH Meeting will be arranged by staff TBC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (none). Adjourned.

1 0

Draft report for review by CCWG Plenary, as of our 2-March call
by Steve DelBianco March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

As promised on our call today, attached is our doc/PDF reflecting consensus of our working group. It is labeled CCWG Plenary Draft 1.0 since this is the first version to be shared with the CCWG. It will be sent to CCWG plenary list on 3-Mar-2017 for discussion on 10-Mar in Copenhagen. Here are ways you can continue to suggest edits before 12 UTC on 3-March: 1. Reply all with an email offering comments. 2. Mark-up the attached Word Doc (use track changes, please). 3. Suggest edits or comments on the Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MxAAuxAkV3lEWgaXMT9e89cFVZElm_ftLlw8k4W… —Steve, Cheryl, and Farzi

1 0

Agenda for our Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #23 on Thursday, 2nd March (today) @ 05:00 UTC.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #23 on Thursday, 2nd March (today) @ 05:00 UTC.* *CALL DETAILLink to Adobe Connect:* https://participate.i cann.org/mssi-projects *Mobile: tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535# <//1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535#>* *Agenda:* 0. Call Administration (2 min CLO) 1. Review of any AI's from call #22 on February 23rd (2 min) CLO) see https://community.icann.org/x/7pvRAw *Action Items:* · Everyone to go through the document when they get it, vs doing it on the call, and have proper comments for the call. · All, please advise the rapporteurs if you will be present at the face to face meeting in Copenhagen so we can plan the presentation of our document. 2. Any Updates: (3 min CLO ) 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review. (45 min FB/SdB) a) Review and discuss (as 2nd reading for the WT) the Consolidated Draft Report - (40-55 mins SDB) Intention is for a clean version of this draft to be sent to the CCWG for discussion at the Copenhagen meeting on March 10th after our meeting/discussion. Further to Version 1.3 being distributed for your review by Steve Del Bianco on March 1st with mark up copy of word doc and PDF docs/PDF for version 1.3, dated 28-Feb-2017: With added previously provided responses from the RSSAC. Added a mention of the Bylaws required independent review of AC/Sos other than the GAC. (page 3) Added a placeholder for Executive Summary (Draft proposed text for ES will be reviewed in our meeting) see the Google Doc Draft 1.3 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WppuLbVxfrRBx09hyDVYwj_ yeyW78M7esiSv9InmK8U/edit?usp=sharing 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 min CLO) 10 March full day CCWG Face to Face at ICANN #58 Copenagen 23rd March 0500 UTC 30th March 1300 UTC see Master Schedule at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26… 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (3 min CLO) *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

2 2

Updated draft 1.3 of our report, for our 2-March call
by Steve DelBianco March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Thanks for the reviewing that many of you have already done. (not so much over last 4 days, however …) In the attached docs/PDF for version 1.3, dated 28-Feb-2017: We added previously provided responses from the RSSAC. Added a mention of the Bylaws required independent review of AC/Sos other than the GAC. (page 3) Added a placeholder for Executive Summary Here are ways you can continue to suggest edits: 1. Reply all with an email offering comments. 2. Mark-up the attached Word Doc Draft 1.3 (use track changes, please). 3. Suggest edits or comments on the Google Doc Draft 1.3 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WppuLbVxfrRBx09hyDVYwj_yeyW78M7esiSv9In… —Steve, Cheryl, and Farzi

2 2

Updated draft 1.2 of our report, following up on our 23-Feb call
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Thanks for the active reviewing that many of you have already done. In the attached docs/PDF, I incorporated Google doc edits and comments provided on the 23-Feb call. This includes edits made by Martin Pablo Silva Valent, regarding NPOC review items. We've had several editors of the NPOC text in that draft, so I’d ask the NPOC leadership to please ensure I have retained their preferred edits in v 1.2. I also picked-up some further edits to v1.0 made by Tom Dale (GAC). And we added a summary of all our Track 1 recommendations, right at the beginning of Track 1 section. For each set of Track 1 recommendations, we added this caveat: “Our review leads us to recommend that each SO/AC/Subgroup consider adopting the following “best practices”, where applicable to their structure and purpose" Here are ways you can continue to suggest edits: 1. Reply all with an email offering comments. 2. Mark-up the attached Word Doc Draft 1.2 (use track changes, please). 3. Suggest comments on the Google Doc Draft 1.2 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OtXroe89NERR5FNXethSG9WpnhLK7lYkSo0sK3K… —Steve, Cheryl, and Farzi

1 0