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@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&c...> ________________________________ 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_gBQlHfJlRkOGrjHa26i... Next step is to reach out to the broader group regarding timing of future calls. 5. AOB and review of any AI's. None