CCWG ACCT WS2 Meeting #7 (25 October @ 13:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
- Yvette Guigneaux
Members: Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Izumi Okutani, Julie Hammer, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Michael Abejuela, Pedro da Silva, Robin Gross, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (17)
Participants: Alain Bidron, Alberto Soto, Andrew Harris, Antonia Chu, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Chris Wilson, Christian Dawson, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Herb Waye, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek, Khaled Koubaa, Lori Schulman, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Megan Richards, Meghan Healy, Michael Karanicolas, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Ricardo Holmquist, Sabine Meyer. (27)
Guests: John Poole
Staff: Brenda Brewer, Bernard Turcotte, Elizabeth Andrews, Laena Rahim, Nathalie Vergnolle, Karen Mulberry, Yvette Guigneaux, Anne-Rachel Inne
Observers: Taylor RW Bentley
Apologies: Jorge Villa, Matthew Shears, Christopher Wilkinson, Fiona Asonga
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Introductions and Updates to Statements of Interest
2. ICANN Standards of Behavior for Meetings
3. Review of Action Items from Plenary
4. Update from the IRP group
5. Reports from Subgroups as to the progress of the work, issues that need to be noted and outreach/liaison requests.
a) Transparency – 1st reading
b) SO/AC accountability – questions to SO & ACs
c) Guideline for Good Faith – update
d) Staff accountability – update
e) Human rights – update
f) Ombudsman – update
g) Jurisdiction – update
6. Review of agenda and plan for Hyderabad
7. Introduction of proposed CCWG-Acct Dashboard
8. AOB & conclusion
Notes
Notes (including relevant parts of chat):
40 participants at start of call.
1. Introductions and Updates to Statements of Interest
Mathieu Weill: Thomas Rickert audio only. No changes to SOI.
2. ICANN Standards of Behavior for Meetings
Leon Sanchez:(review of ICANN standards of behaviour slide).
Avri Doria: who enforces the SOB?
Leon Sanchez: per rules the Co-Chairs can address issues raised with respect to these.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: The co chairs per our charter
Avri Doria: i figured i would ask since i was surprised we were being reminded of them. so that means in the subgroups, it is the rapporteurs?
Herb Waye Ombuds: @Avri, people are always free to come to me
3. Review of Action Items from Plenary
Leon Sanchez:1 we have received a number of these. 2 We have received this confirmation yesterday of funding of Ombuds review - details to be confirmed.3 ATRT3 conflicts - note from the Chair of the ICANN Board.
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: regarding the Crocker letter: To the extent that CCWG represents the community, we have already indicated our preference for ATRT3. --> Option 3 - Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations
4. Update from the IRP group
Mathieu Weill: Rapporteur for IOT Becky Burr will present the update.
Becky Burr: (presentation of slides). Deadline to file. propose Alternative 2 modifying the 24 months to be 12 months.
David McAuley (RySG): I was one of those supporting alternative two, agree with Becky
Farzaneh Badii: There was a conversation about time bar on the mailing list. Are we going to revive the conversation there, or are we deciding here?
Alan Greenberg: There is a case recently on an implementation plan on Thick WHOIS - registries published an objection and filed an RFR simultaneously. When is the starting point is the issue.
Becky Burr: In this case it would have been when the final decision on the implementation plan has been confirmed.
Farzaneh Badii: Alternative 2 makes sense to me
Becky Burr: we are doing a first read to finalize in Hyderabad
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Farzaneh, Becky suggest alt 2 + 12 months as compromise
Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu, perhaps you put ALT 2 WITH 12 MONTHS FOR REACTION OF THEGROUP AT FIRST READING BUT WE SHOULD NOT GET TO REDISCUSS THAT
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: Noted Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: I think the suggestion made by Becky take care of concerns expressed with some endbded flexibility
Mathieu Weill: BB suggestion accepted as a first reading conclusion.
Becky Burr: Cross Examination. (presentation of slide and 3 options). Recommend mixture of 1 and 2 - use extraordinary test for witnesses and if so up to the panel discretion (alt 2) if cross examinations allowed.
Brett Schaefer: Would the IRP be the first time that a complainant would be able to challenge the ICANN decision directly? If so, iI think they should be able to ask direct questions and challenge conclusions of ICANN Board/Legal directly.
Robin Gross: That seems fair, Brett.
Mathieu Weill: First reading completed per BB's suggestion.
Becky Burr: will circulate the new wording. 3rd item, new rules impact on current IRP cases.
Kavouss Arasteh: Generally speaking no rule or provision should have retroactive application unless legislator prove that such retroactivity is fundamental
Avri Doria: the point is we allow retroactivetivity to future changes, so do not understand why it cannot be applied now.
Kavouss Arasteh: We need to agree on something which is clear, precise and not subject to additional conditions. We should not allow any retroactivity at all.
Avri Doria: we were only talking about case in progress, why does it affect claosed cases?
Becky Burr: @AD - no only open cases.
Kavouss Arasteh: Please do not make the Rules complex and bnonunderstandable for those who do not have such legal support as some people has.
Becky Burr: understand this - this is a complex legal problem - the standard solution is the rules in place when you file are the rules for the case. I am recommending this.
Cherine Chalaby: Becky +1 . In my opinion it is never a good idea to apply rules retrospectively
Avri Doria: that was fast
Brett Schaefer: Could the ongoing cases be given option on which standards to use?
Kavouss Arasteh: Cherine +1 as I said exactly the same legal view
Avri Doria: I had draft language in the group that I wish had not been thrown out. but will not stop progress because of this problem.
Avri Doria: I do object, but not formally.
Brett Schaefer: Unless the new standard is applied universally, we would be having two processes going either way.
Avri Doria: we will have that condition Brett.
Mathieu Weill: Can this be considered the first reading (no objections). What about panelist selection?
Becky Burr: David McAuley has drafted a document which will be presented in Hyderabad.
Mathieu Weill: Excellent.
Conclusions:
-Deadline to File: alternative 2 but change 24 months to12 months from final decision.
-Cross examination of witnesses: TBD by the IRP Panel if the extraordinary standard test for in person is met.
-IRP in process: use the existing rules. No retroactive application.
5. Reports from Subgroups as to the progress of the work, issues that need to be noted and outreach/liaison requests.
a) Transparency – 1st reading
Michael Karanicolas: (presentation of document and process).
Kavous Arasteh: Suggest accept document but it is too big for a first reading.
Farzaneh Badii: Michael, is your group at recommendation stage?
Farzaneh Badii: I am sceptical about some of these recommendations.
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Michael: does the report basically say that all formal intteractiosn between SOs/ACs and the Board are fully transparent?
Chris Wilson: Fair point, Kavouss.
Michael Karanicolas: Yes, Farzaneh - recommendations are down at the end
Sebastien Bachollet: There are overlaps with these recommendations and am looking forward at how we will organize inter-group work.
Leon Sanchez: we will review again in Hyderabad and would be ok to be a first reading when considering this is not a final acceptance but rather getting ready for public comments.
Michael Karanicolas: Mark - subject to the exceptions in the DIDP
Brett Schaefer: I agree with Kavouss since there are still outstanding questions in the text to be addressed.
Michael Karanicolas: These specify, in part, that information shouldn't be disclosed if it would harm the deliberative/decision making processes
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Thanks Michael - good to know!
Michael Karanicolas: I don't think a review/reading now would preclude further discussion
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: recommendations begin at page 16, if you want to see where Transparency is headed.
Kavouss Arasteh: lEON, i DO NOT TAKE IT AS READY FOR FIRST READING
Michael Karanicolas: As I mentioned, we need to expand substantially on a few areas, particularly connected to proactive disclosure
Steve DelBianco: Have you considered those who have had bad experiences with the existing DIDP on the group?
Michael Karanicolas: We have considered the input from people with those complaints. We are focused on how the policy should be improved. We recieved detailed feedback from Ed Morris on this report.
Kavouss Arasteh: Mic. we appreciate yr efforts but we need time to carefully review that
Michael Karanicolas: Please - we welcome review and further comments, of course
Michael Karanicolas: At Hyderabad, or beforehand via email
Chris Wilson: Agreed. This is far from final.
Leon Sanchez: Note Kavous' objection but will proceed.
b) SO/AC accountability – questions to SO & ACs
Mathieu Weill: Really encourage list discussion of these issues prior to Hyderabad would be best.
Farzaneh Badii: (presenting the questions slides)
Steve DelBianco: few elements of clarification - we are presenting these questions for avoidance of doubt to find documents we have not found or things that have not been written. Would welcome ICANN Staff supporting all SOACs identifying these documents which could then be amended for transmission by the relevant SOAC.
Mathieu Weill: just asking SOACs or constituencies?
Farzaneh Badii: Its up to SOACs.
Kavous Arasteh: Any questions to SOACs that require investigation of other SOACs will cause problems. Per SDB we should not have parallel - staff or SOAC.
Mathieu Weill: I think those concerns are addressed KA.
Kavouss Arasteh: I have objection that secretariat provide any information without being verfied by the concerned SO/AC
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: That's agreed Kavouss
Cherine Chelaby: questions vs charter.
Steve DelBiano: review of focus of sub-group.
Alan Greenberg: Bylaws are not written for this. gNSO is open to those who chose to participate - but may have responsibility beyond those. ALAC rules are different. Its ok to ask SOACs who their constituencies are and how they relate to them.
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: per Alan's point, that is why our first question is, What is your interpretation of the designated community defined in the Bylaws. For example, do you view your designated community more broadly or narrowly than the Bylaws ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed, Steve that is why we are asking to seek out these variabilities.
Cherine Chalaby: @Steve, thanks for your comments and understand that it is not easy to give a definitive answer at this stage
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: @Cherine -- would you say we are on the right track?
Kavous Arateh: Mutual accountability was settled in WS1 and should not be done in WS2.
Herb Waye Ombuds: Mutual accountability will only work if all groups are on the same page regarding inclusive vs. restrictive participation.
Mathieu Weill: there may be some confusion on intent but we can clear this up at the face to face meeting.
Farzaneh Badii: the current suggestion for Mutual Accountability Roundtable suggested by Wille Currie is not a forum with binding decisions, it’s about sharing views and perspectives among SO/ACs. we have not yet got to discuss that in depth with the group.
Farzaneh Badii: in response to"Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/AC ON ACCOUNTABILITY" , certainly when the group finalizes and decides on the role of MAR and if we should have it in place, then we can make changes.
Kavouss Arasteh: Farzane, we should be objective, pragmatic, and no one should consistently push for the so-called “ Mutal Accountabilty" as it really does not work
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: I think there's agreement to defer the discussion on MAR at the moment. Let's follow that line
Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I agree that we should be pragmatic, however, our charter has charged us with assessing Mutual Accountability Roundtable. We have to address it and come to a conclusion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Nor should any one of us push only against it when we are yet to actually discuss it in any detail at all Kavous ... Happy t end the conversation in chat here Mathieu
c) Guideline for Good Faith – update
Lori Schulman: (presentation of the very early draft).
Robin Gross: Has the community legal team been reconstituted? I thought we agreed to do that awhile ago, but haven't seen anything further on it.
Leon Sachez: Legal team will be meeting to consider these questions. this is the first request for the Legal Committee.
Alan Greenberg: Discussion of the some of the issues within in the group. Do not want to be limited by needing a rationale but not a cause.
Robin Gross: A dispute over facts should not prevent a removal, so I share Alan's concern.
Lori Schulman: AG good point. Reason and cause are different. We should not remove a Board member arbitrarily.
Robin Gross: Yes, it is "rationale" that must be provided.
Kavouss Arasteh: bOARD'S REMOVAL IS A VERY DELICATE AND CRITICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON PURE THEORY WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY UNINTENDED OR CONSEQUENTAL ACTIONS THAT BE BE OCURRED IF A MISTAKE IS MADE IN OBLITRATELY MANNER
d) Staff accountability – update
Avri Doria: (presentation of status update document).
Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/aC ON ACCOUNTABILIT" - dURING ws i , I did indicate that pursuing staff accountabilty shall not give rise t to interference with ICANNN management scheme nor disregard the hierarchy of works and responsibilities
Becky Burr: ICANN staff is accountable through Reconsideration and IRP
Kavouss Arasteh: Staff are accountable to their hierarchy and the Hierarchy are accountable to the community
Kavouss Arasteh: Beckie ,yes
Avri Doria: many of us have been in organizations where there are multiple point of staff accountability. just having one point of accountability does not seem correct to many of us.
Mathieu Weill: Some of these questions would seem relevant with the ICANN CEO at our F@F meeting.
Sebastien Bachollet: We will need to discuss the new Complaints Officer which is relevant to this and the Ombuds sub-group.
Brett Schaefer: Becky, Dot Registry case said ICANN Legal believes that the bylaws do not apply to staff, only to the Board. An IRP only goes to bylaws violations, so how would that address staff accountability?
e) Human rights – update
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Niels Ten Oever has sent a status report but the conclusion is we are not ready to submit a report.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree with Tijani - we are deep into discussions in the HR sub team and Niels written report is a fair assessment
f) Ombudsman – update
Sebastien Bachollet: (presentation of slides Little time left.)
g) Jurisdiction – update
Greg Shatan: (presentation of the Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document).
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): dear Greg, when was this report circulated to the subgroup? must have been lost amongst my emails...
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Jorge: also lost amongst my mails :)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Don't remember that the working doc contains exactly these conclusions... anyway it is a work in progress doc... not an agreed one
Kavouss Arasteh: This merely a copy of the working doc, and does not constitute any progress report. At the last call of the Group, I said it is a good START.That being said it is far from being agreed
kavous Arasteh: Main problem we have is Applicable Law.
Greg Shatan: I thought "applicable law" was an issue in the HR subgroup....
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): I could also swear that we had something on "applicable law" in one of the WS 1 memos, but I have failed to find it
David McAuley (RySG): Applicable law is an active discussion in HR subteam
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Greg is right: that's a HR subgroup issue
6. Review of agenda and plan for Hyderabad
Mathieu Weill: (presentation of proposed schedule)
7. Introduction of proposed CCWG-Acct Dashboard
(Skipped)
8. AOB & conclusion
Mathieu Weill: (none). Adjourned
Action Items
Documents
- CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20161025-SlidesV1
- CCWG_WS2_Transp Report.Draft1.Rev
- SO/AC Accountability questions
AC Chat
Yvette Guigneaux: (10/24/2016 20:44) Welcome all to the CCWG-Accountability Plenary Meeting #7, | Tuesday, 25 October 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (10/25/2016 07:33) Hello, in a few moments I'll be trying my laptop microphone.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (07:34) Could you please enable my microphone?
Brenda Brewer: (07:37) yes, One moment please Jean-Jacques. Thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) Hi Brenda
Brenda Brewer: (07:41) Mics are on now Jean-Jacques.
Brenda Brewer: (07:41) Hello all!
Becky Burr: (07:51) Hi Brenda and Bernie. For IRP we can use the same slides we used in September
Julf Helsingius: (07:53) Hello from Madrid (RIPE73)
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:55) Hello everyone
Leon Sanchez: (07:56) Hello everyone!
Shreedeep Rayamajhi: (07:56) hello eveyone
Ricardo Holmquist: (07:56) good day everyone
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:56) Hello everyone,
Cherine Chalaby: (07:58) Hi everyone
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (07:58) Hello everyone
Robin Gross: (07:58) Good morning from San Francisco!
Megan Richards: (07:58) good afternoon all
avri doria: (07:59) hello everybody
Alberto Soto: (07:59) Hello all!!
Herb Waye Ombuds: (07:59) Hello everyone from Canada
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:00) hi all
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:00) We will start in a couple of minutes
Alberto Soto: (08:01) from rayni Buenos Aires...
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:02) hi all!
Chris Disspain: (08:02) Greetings all
Khaled Koubaa: (08:02) Hello everyone
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:02) What's it like to not do this in the middle of the night, Chris? :)
Lori Schulman: (08:03) hello
Chris Disspain: (08:03) :-) - I am now in UK...so it is afternoon!
Chris Disspain: (08:03) it's a joy
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:03) :D
Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:05) Hi all!
Markus Kummer: (08:05) Hi all!
avri doria: (08:06) who enforces the SOB?
Chris Disspain: (08:06) you do Avri ;-)
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:06) The co chairs per our charter
avri doria: (08:06) i figured i would ask since i was surprised we were being reminded of them.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:07) Charter says : Theco-‐chairsareempoweredtorestricttheparticipationofsomeonewhoseriouslydisruptstheworkinggroup.Generally,theparticipantshouldfirstbewarnedprivately,andthenwarnedpubliclybeforesucharestrictionisputintoplace;inextremecircumstances,thisrequirementmaybebypassed.Thisrestrictionissubjecttotherightofappealasoutlinedabove.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:07) oups, tricky paste
avri doria: (08:07) so that means in the subgroups, it is the rapporteurs?
Herb Waye Ombuds: (08:07) @Avri, people are always free to come to me
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:08) Absolutely Herb
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:08) The co-chairs are empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the working group. Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances, this requirement may be bypassed. This restriction is subject to the right of appeal as outlined above.
Karen Mulberry: (08:08) Sorry on listen only
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:08) Found it !
Megan Richards: (08:09) shouldn't this also be a perfect area for "self-regulation" in each different ICANN forum?
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (08:11) regarding the Crocker letter: To the extent that CCWG represents the community, we have already indicated our preference for ATRT3. --> Option 3 - Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope ofassessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:12) Thank you for this reminder, Steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:13) slides are ok for me
Wale Bakare: (08:16) Greetings all
David McAuley (RySG): (08:17) I was one of those supporting alternative two, agree with Becky
Farzaneh Badii: (08:17) There was a conversation about time bar on the mailing list. Are we going to revive the conversation there, or are we deciding here?
Farzaneh Badii: (08:18) Alternative 2 makes sense to me
Becky Burr: (08:18) we are doing a first read to finalize in Hyderabad
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:18) Farzaneh, Becky suggest alt 2 + 12 months as compromise
Keith Drazek: (08:19) I think Alan is referring to a Request for Reconsideration, not an IRP.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:21) Mathieu, perhaps you put ALT 2 WITH 12 MONTHS FOR REACTION OF THEGROUP AT FIRST READING BUT WE SHOULD NOT GET TO REDISCUSS THAT
Alan Greenberg: (08:22) Yes, Keith, that is correct, My mistake, but the trigger issue still seemed to apply and I am happy with the answer.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:22) Noted Kavouss
Brett Schaefer: (08:23) Sorry to be late
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:24) I think the suggestion made by Becky take care of concerns expressed with some endbded flexibility
Keith Drazek: (08:25) Thanks Alan, your question was a good one.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:25) Alt 2 and 3 are very closed
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:26) May be Alt 3 would be preferable
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:26) Do you mean close or closed Kavouss ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:27) almost similar
Brett Schaefer: (08:28) Would the IRP be the first time that a complaintant woul dbe able to challange the ICANN decision directly? If so, iI think they should be able to ask direct questions and challange conclusions of ICANN Board/Legal directly.
Robin Gross: (08:29) That seems fair, Brett.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:29) Generally speaking no Rule or provision should have retroactive application unless legislator prove that such retroactivity is fundamental
avri doria: (08:30) the point is we allow retroactivetivity to future changes, so do not understand why it cannot be applied now.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:31) We need to agree on something which is clear, precise and not subject to additional conditions
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:32) We should not allow any retroactivity at all
avri doria: (08:33) we were only talking about case in progress, why does it affect claosed cases?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:33) Please do not make the Rules complex and bnonunderstandable for those who do not have such legal support as some people has
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:35) thank you Beckie
Cherine Chalaby: (08:35) Becky +1 . In my opinnion it is never a good idea to apply rules retrospectively
avri doria: (08:36) that was fast
Brett Schaefer: (08:36) Could the ongoing cases be given option on which standards to use?
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:36) Cherine +1 as I said exactly the same legal view
avri doria: (08:36) i had draft langauge in the group that I wish had not been thown out. but will nto stop progress becasue of this problem.
avri doria: (08:37) i do object, but not formally.
Brett Schaefer: (08:37) Unless the new standard is applied universally, we woul dbe haveing two processes going either way.
avri doria: (08:37) we will have that condition Brett.
Becky Burr: (08:38) for the remainder of this call I will be on the phone only.
Greg Shatan: (08:38) I was on audio only up to now. I am now in the AC room (obviously).
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:38) Beckie, thank you very much for your tireless efforts leading IOT
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:38) Welcome Greg
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:42) No sound Kavous
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:42) yes ok now
Farzaneh Badii: (08:42) Michael, is your group at recommendation stage?
Farzaneh Badii: (08:43) I am sceptical about some of these recommendations.
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (08:43) Michael: does the report basically say that all formal intteractiosn between SOs/ACs and the Board are fully transparent?
Chris Wilson: (08:43) Fair point, Kavouss.
Michael Karanicolas: (08:43) Yes, Farzaneh - recommendations are down at the end
Michael Karanicolas: (08:43) Mark - subjec to the exceptions in the DIDP
Brett Schaefer: (08:43) I agree with Kavouss since there are still outstanding questions in the text to be addressed.
Michael Karanicolas: (08:44) These specify, in part, that information shouldn't be disclosued if it would harm the deliberative/decisionmaking processes
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (08:44) Thanks Michael - good to know!
Michael Karanicolas: (08:45) I don't think a review/reading now would preclude further discussion
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (08:45) recommendations begin at page 16, if you want to see where Transparency is headed.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:46) lEON, i DO NOT TAKE IT AS READY FOR FIRST READING
Lori Schulman: (08:46) i have lost my sound
Michael Karanicolas: (08:46) As I mentioned, we need to expand substantially on a few areas, particularly connected to proactive disclosure
Lori Schulman: (08:46) i have lost my sound
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:46) Works here Lori
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:48) Mic. we appreciate yr efforts but we need time to carefully review that
Michael Karanicolas: (08:48) Please - we welcome review and further comments, of course
Michael Karanicolas: (08:49) At Hyderabad, or beforehand via email
Chris Wilson: (08:49) Agreed. This is far from frinal.
Brenda Brewer: (08:49) @ Lori, please log out and back in to Adobe. Audio should then work again for you
Keith Drazek: (08:50) Very difficult to hear
Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: (08:51) Same here
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:51) yes hard to hear for me as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:51) you are a little mufled Farzi
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:51) very faint
Yvette Guigneaux: (08:51) Lori - do we have you back?
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (08:51) yes sounds like a lower volume
avri doria: (08:51) i hear ok
Yvette Guigneaux: (08:51) sound is muffled a bit - perhaps try back up from the mic a bit
Robin Gross: (08:51) I can hear
Yvette Guigneaux: (08:51) now you're good
Keith Drazek: (08:51) That's better
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:51) that is better
Megan Richards: (08:51) that's a bit better
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:52) Mathieu always had a very good ear...
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (08:52) :-p
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:52) (I can hear clearly now)
Michael Karanicolas: (08:55) Apologies - I just have to step away for a few minutes, will be back for later discussions
Yvette Guigneaux: (08:55) Lori - you back now?
Lori Schulman: (08:55) yes, I lost my connection. I am back in.
Yvette Guigneaux: (08:55) ok
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:56) Thx Farzi
Farzaneh Badii: (08:57) thanks Steve
Brenda Brewer: (08:59) Kavouss, your phone line is open on this end. Please unmute on your end. Thank you!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:59) that is really up to the AC's and SOs
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (08:59) 3rd paragraph on page 1 asks "(and any subgroups)"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:59) indeed Steve
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (09:02) @Kavouss +1.
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (09:02) that decision is up to each SO/AC, Mr. Arasteh. We are not asking Staff
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (09:03) That's right, Mathieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:03) NO i do not agree to that¨$
Lori Schulman: (09:04) lost sound again. is it just me?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:05) just you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:05) may be you Lori
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:05) I have objection that secretarioat provide any information without being verfied by the concerned SO 7AC
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:05) That's agreed Kavouss
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:06) That is work yet to be tackled
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:07) sound is good here Lori
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (09:08) per Alan's point, that is why our first question is, What is your interpretation of the designated community defined in the Bylaws. For example, do you view your designated community more broadly or narrowly than the Bylaws ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:08) indeed Steve that is why we are asking to seek out these variabiities
Cherine Chalaby: (09:08) @Steve, thanks for your comments and understand that it is not easy to give a definitive answer at this stage
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (09:09) @Cherine -- would you say we are on the right track?
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:09) do we have you back Lori?
Cherine Chalaby: (09:11) @ Steve, I am not clear on how mutual accountability can be enforced, or if it will work within the ICANN environment
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:11) Lori hasn't been able to get back yet
avri doria: (09:11) skipping staff?
avri doria: (09:12) oh well.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:12) Going to you now Avri
Herb Waye Ombuds: (09:12) Mutual accountability will only work if all groups are on the same page regarding inclusive vs. restrictive participation.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:12) Leon was substituting "his" next chairing item
avri doria: (09:13) the note under d about loru should be under e, since she is nto staff. act.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:13) We should not invoke and generate any discussion about" what is your interpretation of designated community" Nor we need to pursue MUTUAL accountability as this would create certain dgree of confrontations between so7AC
Leon Sanchez: (09:13) Indeed, didn't meanto skip any item Avri. My apologies
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:13) The notes are not matching with the right topic
David McAuley (RySG): (09:13) I agree with Tijani - we are deep into dicussions in the HR subteam and Niels written report is a fair assessment
Farzaneh Badii: (09:14) the current suggestion for Mutual Accountability Roundtable suggested by Wille Currie is not a forum with binding decisions, it’s about sharing views and perspectives among SO/ACs. we have not yet got to discuss that in depth with the group.
Robin Gross: (09:14) I hear you avri
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:14) Lori, we'll turn to you next
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:14) @AD - fixed
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:16) Lori is back on and ready to present for Guidelines
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:16) Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/aC ON ACCOUNTABILIT"
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:18) dURING ws i , I did indicate that pursuing staff accountabilty shall not give rise t to interference with ICANNN maganement scheme nor disregard the hierarchy of works and respobsibilities
Becky Burr: (09:20) ICANN staff is accountable through Reconsideration and IRP
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:20) Staff are accoutable to their hierarchy and the Hierarchy are accountableto the community
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:21) Beckie ,yes
avri doria: (09:21) many of us have been in organizations where there are multiple point of staff accountabilty. just having one point of accountabilty does not seem correct to many of us.
Yvette Guigneaux: (09:21) Time Check: 40 minute mark
Brett Schaefer: (09:22) Becky, Dot Registry case said ICANN Legal believes that the bylaws do not apply to staff, only to the Board. An IRP only goes to bylaws violations, so how would that address staff accountability?
Farzaneh Badii: (09:22) in response to"Kavouss Arasteh: Then pls change the tittle to read" Experience sharing among SO/aC ON ACCOUNTABILITY" , certainly when the group finalizes and decides on the role of MAR and if we should have it in place, then we can make changes.
Christian Dawson: (09:25) Please mute if you aren't speaking
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:27) Farzane, we should be objective, pragmatic, and no one should contistantly push for the so-called 2 Mutal Accountabilty" as it really does not work
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:28) I think there's agreement to defer the discussion on MAR at the moment. Let's follow that line
Farzaneh Badii: (09:28) Kavouss, I agree that we should be pragmatic, however, our charter has charged us with assessing Mutual Accountability Roundtable. We have to address it and come to a conclusion.
Farzaneh Badii: (09:28) oops sorry Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:28) No pb
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:28) Just trying to focus us on one conversation. Great work from Lori's group
Robin Gross: (09:28) Has the community legal team been reconstituted? I thought we agreed to do that awhile ago, but haven't seen anything further on it.
Farzaneh Badii: (09:29) I have to leave the meeting now. Sorry. Have a great meeting in Hyderabad.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:29) That's our first request Robin. Coming your way...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:29) Nor should any one of us push only against it when we are yet to actually discuss it in any detail at all Kavous ... Happy t end the conversatio in chat here Mathieu
Robin Gross: (09:29) Thanks, Mathieu.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:29) Bye FARZI THANKS FOR PRESENTING HERE
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:29) Caps Sorry
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:30) Chair's duty is not pushing the group but conducting meeting
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:31) I referred to SO/ac CO-CHAIRS
Robin Gross: (09:32) A dispute over facts should not prevent a removal, so I share Alan's concern.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:33) Kavouss, your reference to the rapporteurs is ungrounded. Our rapporteurs do our best and deserve our utmost respect.
Robin Gross: (09:34) Yes, it is "rationale" that must be provided.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:35) bOARD'S REMOVAL IS A VERY DELICATE AND CRITICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON PURE THEORY WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY UNINTENDED OR CONSEQUENTAL ACTIONS THAT BE BE OCURRED IF A MISTAKE IS MADE IN OBLITRATELY MANNER
Steve DelBianco [CSG]: (09:35) thanks, Lori. Good work on this
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:35) +1 - excellent work !
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:36) Thank Youo Leon and Mathieu I beleive ALL the Rapporters are dong a great job and a neutral one
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:37) and YES I llike some others are in ALL the Tipics so I do know thos (well that is a personal observation of course)
Robin Gross: (09:38) Isn't there a CEP subgroup also? I didn't see that on the agenda for updates.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:39) I can not talk for others then my comments are certainly my comments
Chris Disspain: (09:39) @ Robin...they have not had a meeting yet
Chris Disspain: (09:39) they meet later this week I think
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:39) Yes, meeting nb°1 this week
Robin Gross: (09:39) ahhh, thanks, Chris.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:40) By the way I have never targetted any individual in my comments I talked as a guding principle pls do not kindly misinteroprete that
Chris Disspain: (09:40) I need to leave the call now to start another call....see many of you in Hyderabad I hope
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:41) Bye Chris safe travels
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:42) CCWG CO-CHAIRS are kindly requested to defend not only the rapporteurs but also participants. I saw the contray today
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:48) dear Greg, when was this report circulated to the subgroup? must have been lost amongst my emails...
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (09:49) Jorge: also lost amongst my mails :)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:50) Don't remember that the working doc contains exactly these conclusions... anyway it is a work in progress doc... not an agreed one
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:50) This merely a copy of the working doc, and does not constitute any progress report
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:51) At the last call of the Group, I said it is a good START
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:52) That being said it is far from being agreed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:56) Thanks Greg
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:56) It would have been good to agree a progress report in the subgroup
Greg Shatan: (09:58) I thought "applicable law" was an issue in the HR subgroup....
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:58) I could also swear that we had something on "applicable law" in one of the WS 1 memos, but I have failed to find it
David McAuley (RySG): (09:59) Applicable law is an active discussion in HR subteam
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:59) Greg is right: that's a HR subgroup issue
Philip Corwin: (09:59) Bye all/see you in Hyderabad-safe travel
Robin Gross: (10:00) Visa finally came through, so I'll be in India too.
Leon Sanchez: (10:01) Good news Robin!
Chris Wilson: (10:01) So, WS2 subgroup reports are after lunch at f2f meeting?
Chris Wilson: (10:01) Ok. Thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:02) and we also need to look at the proposed Dashboard as well YES?
avri doria: (10:02) got another call. bye now.
Herb Waye Ombuds: (10:02) Goodbye everyone, see you in India
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:02) Thanks everyone
David McAuley (RySG): (10:02) Thanks all, bye
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:02) bye all
Erich Schweighofer: (10:02) Bye from Vienna, seeing you in Hyderabad
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:03) safe travels for those of you headg to Hyderabad
Markus Kummer: (10:03) Bye everyone
Cherine Chalaby: (10:03) See you in Hyderabad
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:03) Bye
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (10:03) Thank you all and safe travels to Hyderbad to those who go!
Julf Helsingius: (10:03) Thanks and safe travels!
Alan Greenberg: (10:03) Thanks all
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): (10:03) Thanks all
Brenda Brewer: (10:03) Thank you for joining today's meeting.
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (10:03) Very useful meetign - bye!
Robin Gross: (10:03) Bye safe travels.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:04) bye