- Ws2-so_ac - lists.icann.org

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 19 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #17 – 19 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/baPDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 0. Call Administration Audio only: no participants - roll call will be taken from AC room. No SOI updates 1. Review of any AI's from call #16 on January 12th @1300 UTC Encourage more participants to volunteer to take part in the drafting team, as there is a lot of work and little time remaining before Copenhagen Very close to receiving additional response from IPC Greg Shatan: IPC response is all but final -- it's being put out for comments by membership for a couple of days and then will be submitted to this august body. 2. Updates Limited updates, suggestion to move to 3rd item of agenda 3. Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's - Methodology review and discuss, desired objectives for this track from the data capture exercise see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyUsSISvrcvotPpTCSqpAr4iqz7edoyUKPQD0ef… Farzaneh presented the categories she proposes to organize the data capture documentation. We need to agree on the methodology and start implementing. We have received responses from GNSO, ccNSO, RCC, NCUC, ISPCP, ASO, GAC and SSAC. Only 2 GNSO subgroups have not responded: NCSG and NPOC (Registries and registrars) Some responses are very specific, and others are more general Farzaneh Badii: expectation is to come up with workplan for each SO/AC? or can it just be general? coming up with recommendations for each SO/AC is a very large task, I don't know if we have the means to do that. Greg: I think that rather than customizing recommendations for each SO/AC, we should come up with best practices or overall advice, and it's up to each organization to operationalize these recommendations Alan: each group is unique, I doubt there are going to be many similarities. We can only summarise the responses. Do the responses include a self assessment, or just reflect on facts? Steve DelBianco: What Alan is describing satisfies our charter to "Review". But it does not meet our charter to "develop recommendations to improve processess" Several remarks in the chat in favor of the "best practices" approach. Steve: our initial proposal was to identify unique vs convergent mechanisms. Categorizing mechanisms as best practices is an add-on. Steve DelBianco: Once we have described best practices, our "review" could identify AC/SOs coudl benefit from moving towards the best practices. THAT could be our "recommendation. that is, we compare each AC/SO against the Best Practices, and not against each other Kavouss suggests a linear approach, ie take one question at a time in our next calls and analyze the responses to test the methodology, Steve: if we do that, let's start with an easier question, eg the Transparency question. Kavouss Arasteh: Steve , the easiest question may not represent the methodology to be agreed for difficult question. Cheryl: we shall continue our plee for more volunteers to join the drafting team. Proposed way forward: drafting team to pick 1 question to analyze in our next call. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 26 January @ 13:00 UTC • 02 February @ 19:00 UTC • 09 February @ 05:00 UTC • 16 February @ 13:00 UTC • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC Documents Presented · Data-Capture-Accountability.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153005/Data-Capture-Acco…>

1 0

IPC Response to Subgroup Questions
by Greg Shatan Jan. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 2017

Fellow Subgroup Members, I am submitting, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency, the IPC's response to the Subgroup's questions. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the attached. Best regards, Greg Shatan IPC President

1 0

Agenda for today's meeting of Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #17 on Thursday, 19th January @ 05:00 UTC.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jan. 18, 2017

Jan. 18, 2017

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #17 on Thursday, 19th January @ 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 (2-5 min CLO) 1. Review of any AI's from call #16 on January 12th @1300 UTC (2-5 min) CLO) see https://community.icann.org/x/FJTDAw 2. Updates: (5 min CLO/FB /SDB) * Input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review. (30-40 min FB/SDB/CLO) a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's - Methodology review and discuss, desired objectives for this track from the data capture exercise see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyUsSISvrcvotPpTC SqpAr4iqz7edoyUKPQD0ef-Yj0/edit?usp=sharing b) Overall Reporting See https://docs.google.com/do cument/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8/edit?u sp=sharing[docs.google.com] - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed “Mutual Accountability Roundtable” to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.------ The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 5 -----> Discussion regarding this outcome and CCWG Plenary. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 min CLO) · 26 January @ 13:00 UTC · 02 February @ 19:00 UTC · 09 February @ 05:00 UTC · 16 February @ 13:00 UTC · 02 March @ 05:00 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (3 min CLO)

1 0

IPC Responding Soon
by Greg Shatan Jan. 14, 2017

Jan. 14, 2017

All, The IPC response is nearly complete, but still needs to be reviewed by membership. I expect to submit to the Subgroup it next week. Greg Shatan

2 1

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #16 - 12 JAN 17
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Hello All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup | Meeting #16 @ 13:00 UTC - 12 January 2017 will be made available here: https://community.icann.org/x/qpnDAw For your reference, a copy of the notes are below. Thank you! Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes (including relevant portions of chat) 0. Call Administration (2-5 min CLO) * No audio only, roll call will be taken from the AC room. * No SOI updates. * Please test your audio, staff can get you a dial-out if anyone needs one 1. Review of any AI's from call #15 on December 15th * Thanks to all who were able to contribute over the break to assembling responses from the questionnaire. * Still accepting volunteers to join the team in charge of analyzing the responses. * request to change the time of 19 January @ 05:00 UTC: not possible - the 19:00 slot is not available. 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SO and AC's * have received substantial inputs * Steve DelBianco: All 7 of the responses received are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2CLsyXLvhweOVZLSWctMVhTaUU[drive.g…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_drive…> * asking Stafff to add the responses to the wiki * Brenda Brewer: already done. See SOAC documents here: https://community.icann.org/x/lBWOAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> * Steve DelBianco: We did not receive a response from ALAC or from RSSAC, as far as I can tell * Alan Greenberg: ALAC response is coming, in about 2 weeks (estimated by end of January). ALAC was busy with the review. * CW: I would like to get a heads up e-mail when a new response is received. * Cheryl: we will, probably by a message to the full list * Steve: do we know if RSSAC plans to provide a response? if not, could we reach out to them? * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we will make a follow-up with RSSAC, viable CCWG Co-Chairs (Thomas) * There are a few more constituency groups that have not responded, not sure if they will. * Thomas Rickert: We can switch to "harassement mode" to get more responses * avri doria: we have a response from NCUC, not NCSG. i will look into getting one from the NCSG ACTION (Thomas Rickert): reach out to RSSAC to find out if they will provide an answer to the SO/AC questionnaire, and get an understanding from the various GNSO subgroups of which ones plan to provide a response. * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call * sub team activities ducktale into agenda item 3 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's * Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: Cherly, as I have expressed I volunteer to be part of the drafting team. * Steve DelBianco: Our task in Track 1 is to "review and develop recommendations" on SOAC Accountability, per this Bylaw: Section 27.1. WORK STREAM 2, (b) The CCWG-Accountability recommended in its Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the Board, dated 23 February 2016 ("CCWG-Accountability Final Report") that the below matters be reviewed and developed following the adoption date of these Bylaws ("Work Stream 2 Matters"), in each case, to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report:(iii) Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee accountability, including but not limited to improved processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture; * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): huge thanks to all who have contributed to this work so far and especially Farzaneh * Steve: We have quite a bit of work to do, have to read all the responses in detail, and we need to organize our work * Who had stepped forward to help? Steve, Olga. We don't have the people to do the work on this call. * Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: There were other volunteers, maybe they are not in the call now * Michael Abejuela (ASO): I am happy to assist in this work * CW: I volunterred for something last year, but I have a holiday blank as to what exactly I was supposed to do. * Can staff go back to previous notes to see who else had volunteered? * Steve: any comments from the group on the work that was done by the drafting team so far? * Alan: we shouldn't get too much in the details in our recommendations, the intent is more important than the implementation. * Michael Abejuela (ASO): We should be careful on taking the stance of "recommending" vs. stating an observation and stating a principle of accountability for which we strive. Agree with Alan that it should not be a mandate particularly in implementation of a particular principle. * Steve: We should be explicit in what was reported. For example, with regards to decision appeal mechanisms, we could 1) identify which SO/AC have any, and which don't, 2) from there we could make the recommendation that those who don't have one consider implementing one. * Cheryl: we need to carefully weigh in if our recommendations are implementable. * Consitutency groups each have a charter. We can get inputs from these charters. * avri doria: the NCSG chater is at: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf>[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_impr…> * Sebastien (ALAC): http://www.npoc.org/media/files/NPOC_Charter_Approved_06-24-2011.pdf[npoc.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.npoc.org_media_file…> b) Overall Reporting See https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69…>] - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.------ The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 5 -----> Discussion regarding this outcome and CCWG Plenary. * Cheryl: Only 7 weeks left before Copenhagen. We would like to have a document ready in advance to send to the CCWG, in order to receive guidance from the plenary during the F2F meeting. Overall reporting document needs to continue to be updated and worked on, not only during these calls but also in between. * CW: since I shall leave the call early, please note lthat under Track 2 (MART) and Track 3 (IRP), my point of view is reflected in the draft report, so I would not support substantive amendment. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule * 19 January @ 05:00 UTC * 26 January @ 13:00 UTC * 02 February @ 19:00 UTC * 09 February @ 05:00 UTC * 16 February @ 13:00 UTC * 02 March @ 05:00 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's

1 0

Data Capture on Accountability of SOACs
by farzaneh badii Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear all, Attached is a sample document in which I tried to capture the responses we received from some of the ACs and SOs so far. It includes: GNSO, CCNSO, Business Constituency, Noncommercial users constituency, GAC and SSAC. If there are more responses from other groups please let me know. The method used is as following: 5 categories were chosen to classify the answers: 1. The designated community in SO/ACs and if they go beyond the ICANN bylaws 2. Rulemaking mechanisms in SO/ACs (bylaws, operation documents, customary mechanisms) 3. Unique accountability mechanisms (what is only specific to some SO/ACs?) 4. Convergence of mechanisms and answers 5. Divergence in response and mechanisms if any The categorization of answers in this way can help us with coming up with a work plan for enhancing SOAC accountability and it does not single out any group in terms of their accountability mechanism and can remain general. This is just a recommended method to capture the responses and the document I am sharing with you is a sample document for you to comment on and add to. Also if you have any comment on the categories or think that this method is not satisfactory you can share it either here, on the google doc or on call on Thursday. I have also attached the doc to this email. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyUsSISvrcvotPpTCSqpAr4iqz7edoyUKPQD0ef… We have a drafting team as well I think the volunteers for the drafting team 1 so far if I am not mistaken were: Olga, Greg, Matt and Steve. we can work with the members of the drafting team on the document until Thursday. If I have missed someone who volunteered for the drafting team, please let us know. It would be great to have someone from each SO/ACs and constituencies in the drafting team. Please note that this is rough draft and only a sample. Thanks Farzaneh

2 1

Agenda for this week's call #16 at 1300 UTC Jan 12th.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #16 on Thursday, 12th January @ 13:00 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 (2-5 min CLO) *apologies received from:- Farzaneh Badii 1. Review of any AI's from call #15 on December 15th (2-5 min CLO) see https://community.icann.org/x/FJTDAw 2. Updates: (5 min CLO /SDB) * Input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations readings and review. (30-40 min SDB/CLO) a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's <LINK to doc to be inserted here, and will be sent under separate cover to our list ASAP> b) Overall Reporting See https://docs.google.com/do cument/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8/edit?u sp=sharing[docs.google.com] - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed “Mutual Accountability Roundtable” to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.------ The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 5 -----> Discussion regarding this outcome and CCWG Plenary. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 min CLO) o 19 January @ 1900 UTC. TBC o 26 January @ 13:00 UTC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (3 min CLO)

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #15 - 15DEC16
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hello All, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup | Meeting #15 @ 05:00 UTC - 15December16 will be made available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FJTDAw For your reference, a copy of the notes are below. Thank you! Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ Notes SO/AC Accountability Meeeting #15 15 December 2016 @ 05:00 UTC Apologies: Julf Helsingius, Olga Cavalli Agenda: 0. Call Administration 1. Review of any AI's from call #14 on December 8th see https://community.icann.org/x/D5TDAw[community.icann.org] 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's * Any Sub Team Activities since our last call 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation readings and review. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69… - track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. - track 2. Evaluate the proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 - track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on pg 5 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule o 12 January @ 13:00 UTC o 19 January @ 05:00 UTC o 26 January @ 13:00 UTC Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat) * Farzaneh walked through the agenda. * Request from Kavouss to move the 0500 of JAN 19 to 1900. 0. Call Administration (Skipped.) 1. Review of any AI's from call #14 on December 8th * see https://community.icann.org/x/D5TDAw * Steve Del Bianco: during the last call, tracks 2 & 3 were discussed. A new version of the document was circulated on Monday, with updates on track 3 regarding IRP. We'll get back to the draft in the last portion of this call. 2. Updates: * Input from the Survey sent to SO andAC's * Farzaneh: We have received response from the ccNSO, constituency group of GNSO and the GAC. Expecting responses from other parts of the GNSO. We have tabulated the answers from GNSO and GAC in a google doc, we'll add the ccNSO after this call. * Steve DelBianco: ASO informed us today that we should have their response this week. We should discuss sending a reminder email to remaining organizations. * Kavouss suggests adding a deadline for responses to be received, so that there is enough time to analyze the responses. * avri doria: we should ask again, but remember that while they should fill them out, they are under no obligation to do so. * Cheryl: maybe our co-chairs can help us get the missing answers. * Steve: we need to fill subteam 1, so that they start working on this, and we should not wait until our next phone call to start the work. * Cheryl: it would be helpful to have more people volunteer to join team 1. * Displayed tabulated table of responses on screen. Current table displayed is difficult to use, because the columns are very narrow. * Loaded GAC response. * Steve: We'll have to summarize the responses in order to be able to display them side by side. Let's discuss the methodology to do the analysis. * Kavouss: we have to keep in mind the end result, which will have to be a short summary of the responses provided. * CW: Do we expect a GNSO reply, and/or several other replies from their respective communities. * Steve: we expect responses from GNSO, but also from stakeholder groups and business constituencies * CW: the first two replies reveal dominant themes, and we should follow these themes (common grounds, and exceptions). This should help identify best practices. * Cheryl: Subteam 1 can use the weekly call to progress the analysis, as well as work off line through the mailing list. * Steve suggests breaking down the question #2 into sub-questions using letters to number the sub-questions. Subteam 1 should follow this numbering in their analysis. * Structural differences need to be noted as part of the analysis, to avoid misinterpretations. * Steve reiterated the need for more volunteers to participate in the analysis of the responses received. ACTION (rapporteurs): work with co-chairs to send reminder emails to SO/ACs who haven't responded yet. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation readings and review. * This section couldn't be covered in call, due to lack of time. 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule o 12 January @ 13:00 UTC o 19 January @ 05:00 UTC o 26 January @ 13:00 UTC * Request from Kavouss to move the 0500 of JAN 19 to 1900 - Cheryl will check if the slot is available.

2 1

Agenda for our call #15, Thursday Dec 15th 2016 at 0500 UTC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

*Please join the Work Stream 2 - SOAC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #15 on Thursday, 15th December @ 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- 5 min CLO)* *1. Review of any AI's from call #14 on December 8th see * https://community.icann.org/x/D5TDAw *(5 min CLO)* *2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-* Input from the Survey sent to SOandAC's (5 min CLO)* Any Sub Team Activities since our last call (3-5 min SDB)* *3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentation readings and review. (30 - 40 min CLO/SDB/FB) * *See *https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR 3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69PNI8/edit?usp=sharing * - *track 1. Review and discuss time line and process for Drafting ST1 to conduct Data Capture and Develop Recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. * - *track 2. Evaluate the proposed “Mutual Accountability Roundtable” to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 4 * - *track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities. The preliminary conclusion in the doc on page 5 *4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)* *5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3-5 min CLO) * *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).* *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:List of International Dial-In Numbers: View dial-in numbers Participant Passcode: 526 338 4535 *

3 4

FOR REVIEW: Draft report on Mutual Accountability Roundtable and IRP applicability
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

For our next SOAC Accountability call, please review the latest from Sub Team 2, who are drafting our Report to the CCWG. The attached draft report draws from our previous documents and discussions, and narrows our work to 3 tracks: Track 1. Review and develop recommendations to improve SO and AC processes for accountability, transparency, and participation that are helpful to prevent capture. [yet to be drafted, since we are awaiting SOAC responses to our questionnaire] Track 2. Evaluate the proposed “Mutual Accountability Roundtable” to assess its viability and, if viable, undertake the necessary actions to implement it. The preliminary conclusion in the attached doc is on page 4: We conclude that the Mutual Accountability Roundtable as originally described is more of a transparency exercise where best practices may be shared. While this exercise is viable, we do not recommend it for formal implementation. SO and AC chairs have a standing email list and may convene calls and meetings at any time. That creates an appropriate and adequate forum for sharing of experiences and best practices on accountability to their respective stakeholders. Track 3. Assess whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities. The preliminary conclusion in the attached doc is on page 5: The IRP would not be applicable to SO & AC activities, as the IRP is currently described in Bylaws. 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 Before our next call, please suggest edits to tracks 2 and 3 in the Google Doc, at https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XrP2QiGv04qNtn_EuOR3nEc6uAN2ySlpQM5f69… —Steve

2 1