[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #13 | 1 December 2016

MSSI Secretariat mssi-secretariat at icann.org
Thu Dec 1 20:45:28 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #13 from 1 December 2016 @ 13:00 UTC will be available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/XoTDAw

 A copy of the notes and chat are found below.

Thank you.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Action Items

  *   ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.

Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat)
0.  Call Administration (2- 5 min CLO)

  *   Roll call will be taken from the Adobe Connect room.
  *   Audio only: Greg Shatan
  *   Asking for more volunteers to join the report drafting team
1. Review of any AI's from call #12 on November 23rd

  *   see    https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw[community.icann.org]<https://community.icann.org/x/w5DDAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org%5D>
2. Updates (5-10 mins) :-

  *   During CCWG Plenary, our subgroup requested to be moved to track 1. This request was approved, our group will now work towards the longer timeline.
  *   Reviewed the SO/AC Accountability dashboard slide - Working now on 3 tracks only.
  *   Steve DelBianco gave an update on the edits made to the draft document.
3. Introduction to IRP in the context of our mandate to Review and comment on the applicability of IRP for use with AC/SO Accountability. 30-40 mins)

  *   Kavouss would like to discuss the applicability of IRP to SO/AC. It has not been designed for that.
  *   Alan  indicated that he would think the rules would be amended if we decide it is a good vehicle
  *   David McAuley made a presentation of the IRP:
  *   SO/AC are not legal entities.
  *   Costs of an IRP can escalate, not sure if SO/AC could pay for those.
  *   It would probably take a change in the bylaws to take SO/ACs in IRPs.
  *   CW in support of David's point on costs.
  *   Kavouss: if we agree that IRP is not a good vehicle, we should document why in our report.
  *   Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): SO/ACs do not take final decisions - at least no decisions with effects beyond themselves - hence I do not think IRP should apply
  *   Steve: I hear that IRP is not applicable today, that it could be, but that it should not. More lighweighed vehicles like ombudsman would be more appropriate.
  *   Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel that applying IRP to what advisory committees and SOs recommend would interfere with our procedures, would increase complexity, would interfere with Board responsibility and be a great new source of income for lawyers... apart to the fact that SO/AC have no legal entity and make no final  decisions applicable to third parties
  *   Greg: the IRP is not fit for purpose for SO/AC dispute resolution.
  *   David reinforced that he believes the IRP is not the right vehicle and would require heavy changes in SO/AC entities
  *   Sebastien Bachollet, Alan Greenberg express support.
  *   The cost implication should not be the only motivation, there could possibly be indemnification.
  *   David McAuley offered to make a written statement to the mailing list to summarize his intervention.
  *   Avri: appeal to the board could be an enabling step to IRP for SOAC action.
  *   Farzaneh summarised the views expressed, ie the existing bylaw is not applicable, and the IRP should not be amended for SO/AC..
  *   Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: for the notes: Our question is “Whether the Independent Review Process (IRP) should be applied to SO & AC activities.”the answer has 3 parts: Would not be applicable, as IRP is currently described in Bylaws.While it 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
  *   Next steps:
     *   Steve: We now need to focus on track 2 on MAR, while we wait on responses from SO/ACs on track 1
     *   The drafting team will update our draft report with today's outcomes.
4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule (2 Min CLO/Staff)

  *   8 December @ 19:00 UTC
5. AOB and recap of any AI's (3min CLO)

  *   ACTION (drafting team): Update google doc with today's discussion, and distribute to the list.
  *   Sebastien Bachollet apologizes for not being able to join the next call.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161201/6ba262cd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list