Sub-group Members:   Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christian Dawson, Farzaneh Badii, Fiona Asonga, Jorge Villa, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Roaslia Morales, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale   (15)

Staff:  Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Karen Mulberry, Trang Nguyen

Apologies: Juan Alejo Peirano, John Curren, Isaac Maposa, Sebastien Bachollet

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**




1. Welcome - Opening Remarks  

2. Review (brief) of last call #3 and any Action Items / Business Arising 

3. Discussion 

     - Existing requirements for reviews of SO/AC Accountability 

     - Effectiveness: community representation in SO/AC decisions and outreach 

     - measuring representation 

     - measuring outreach 

     - Effectiveness and Transparency 

4. the work plan: Track 1: Effectiveness , Track 2. Working plan on enhancing SO/AC accountability , Track 3. MAR, Track 4. IRP 

5.  AOB / Next Meeting 

Next call: 1 September 1900 UTC


Farzaneh - Review of what was discussed on last call - one was the problem statement so that the groups is clear as to what is being worked, include to 
whom the SO/AC is accountable to.  Changes and updates and notes in the Google doc.

Steve - review of the changes made to the draft document to include comments that have been submitted on the list..  Added a new table on the organizational 
reviews the covers details from the AoC and bylaws.  

Discussion - Kavouss raised concern with SO/AC accountability and what is being addressed by the group. Response the new table shows the SO/ACs 
and to whom they are accountable.  Every 5 yrs every SO/AC with the exception of the GAC must undergo a reivew according to the bylaws, this has been 
required for 16 yrs.  Looking at accountability and to whom the group is accountable, not just the executive team.  Accountable to the concept of Users..  Questioned 
the use of the term accountability, as no problem with the use of the term review as its important to improve, but improvement is not accountability.  

Greg - Question raised who decides who the SO/Acs are accountable to?   Need to figure out what the accountability vectors are.

Farzaneh - Pointed noted the text in the draft Google.doc that covers to whom the SO/ACs are accountable.

Steve - certainly within scope to furthe3r fresh out the terms and what they mean - effectiveness and accountable.  Suggested some ways - can look at 
participation diversity, group accessible, esp. to newcomers, interest and decisions made ex. was the decision truly representative of those who did not 
show up.. Reviews have not defined effectiveness and accountability and it might be useful to define these terms for the bylaws.

Alan - Bylaws say review should verify if the organization is accountability to its stakeholders, words added in the new bylaws.   Need to make sure that reviews 
in the future include accountability.  Ground rules are different depending on the SO/AC, GAC construct different that other SO/ACs as they are not accountable 
to every government.  Need to be aware that each group may be different when  considering accountability and to whom.  Accountable to the global group is new..  
Each group is responsible for being accountable for specific interests.  

Cheryl - noted the first ALAC review looked at the structure of the organization and balanced of representation by 15 person group, based on regional 
representation.  Also looked at activities - structure of community, regional organizations, and Council representatives.

Note proposal by Mathew in chat - perhaps we can look at this more linearly - what do we mean by accountability, how do the existing SOs and ACs address 
accountability, how through the various reviews has this changed over time, etc.

Proposal - to highlight areas in document for comments.

Steve - word effectiveness has been part of bylaws for sometime, but not defined.  Use of the term appears to be in the context that the word was used 
and bu the specific SO/AC that it was noted..  Ex look at how effectiveness was used for/by GNSO in its reviews.  May also look at accountability 

Alan - may need to add disclaimer to document as need to be clear as to how using the term accountable as it may not be the same for each 
SO/AC.  Need to define what we mean by it to move ahead.

Farzaneh - For effectiveness, considered measuring two items., representation  and outreach

Noted chat from Matthew Shears: we then need an accepted set of criteria that could be used to measure accountability of the SOs and ACs - appropriately 
tailored to the ICANN space - we are jumping the gun by having discussions of representation.  such a topic has to be measured against something 
and the AC/SOs performance  - but we need criteria first

Google doc for editing and contributions is located at 


Documents Presented


Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #4 on 25 August 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Hi Brenda

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Good day

  Rosalía Morales:hello everyone

  Brenda Brewer:hello all!

  Farzaneh Badii:hi all

  Steve DelBianco:Our current report doc is at

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi everyone,

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):a

  Alan Greenberg:Howdy

  Tatiana Tropina:hi all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Farzi  :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):All Good go ahead

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Thanks  for the doc updates  Steve and  Farzi... Deems I am having some audio isses  us well  so will mainly type  

  Farzaneh Badii:yes

  Tatiana Tropina:I hear echo too

  Tatiana Tropina:no more echo

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:ok now

  Alan Greenberg:Canwe please use the speaker queue and not have a bilateral debate?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Kavous  here you need to refer to the externa Reviews.  GNSO and ALAC  has done or is foinf its 2nd one  already

  Steve DelBianco:Exactly, Alan

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Alan

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Alan  thanks for that clarity of our 'purpose'

  Kavouss. Arasteh: Change the term

  Alan Greenberg:A review is a way of measuring or estimating accountability. And it is only one part of doing that.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Alan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks  Greg , your point of view is also noted  and we should note the options  to discuss a 360 degree approach as well in our work... THANKS 

  Tatiana Tropina:I have a bit of deja vu because I think Greg  asked something like this already - and I agreed. Agree again.

  Farzaneh Badii:we had a discussion last week on that. I will update the document on that discussion.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we will go around things a few times at this stage  I suspect  Yes  Tatiana

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Farzi   T

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Alan  I assume that is a new habd

  Alan Greenberg:Most definitely

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Your next then :-)

  matthw shears:what is missing from the document and would provide a useful starting point would be to capture - similar to the table on page 4 - the language that each SO and AC has in their founding documents as to whom and for what they are accountbale

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):noted  Matthe   Thanks

  Steve DelBianco:Good point, Matthew.    Not easy to find that language for every SOAC and constituenct, though

  matthw shears:I think we need that as a starting point - even there we may find that there are deficieincies

  Steve DelBianco:Same as th eold bylaws in that regard, Alan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):So lets capture what we csan where the lnguage exists

  Steve DelBianco:No, Alan.  THe langage in the table was in the old bylaws too.

  Steve DelBianco:Section 4. had this  shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Well noted Alan

  Steve DelBianco:and you are right that we added the bit about accountable to its constituent members

  matthw shears:perhaps we can look at this more linearly - what do we mean by accountabilty, how do the existing SOs and ACs address accountability, how through the various reviews has this changed over time, etc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hoping we will get there Matthew ;-)

  Tatiana Tropina:+1 to Matt

  Steve DelBianco:GNSO's first review resulted in a re-structure of GNSO Council.

  Steve DelBianco:2nd review (just completed) did not recommend structural changes

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Farzaneh

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Effectiveness is entirely different from accoubtablity

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Steve indeed,  the ALAC's  2nd  one is focussed  more on the structure and function(s)  of the Regional constructs  RALOs  and the ALSes  in far more detail than  was done in the 1st

  matthw shears:Perhaps if we start with track 2 - the Working Plan first the other pieces can be worked into it - may allow us a way forward

  matthw shears:yes - that should be the way we structure the work

  Alan Greenberg:KAvouss is correct in that At-Large and the ALAC is *NOT* accountable to the 4 billion users. We would not want those users to sue ICANN because we were not doing our job. But we MUST be ensure that we do our best to represent their needs.

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Reviews YES.eFFECTIVENESS  YES


  Kavouss. Arasteh:Lan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WE ALL (I trust) agree this is complex  Yes,  and Matthew  is proposig a way of looking at  how any reviews  so far have highlighted  matters for our future track work

  Kavouss. Arasteh:Agree with you ,but it would not be accountabilty as there is entity to ck whether ALAC doing its job to fully represent them. I.In fact you never could do that

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):nothing wrong with developng a disclaimer or more Alan  :-)

  matthw shears:Alan makes the point that we need to understand our respective sense of accountability first

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup

  Steve DelBianco:barriers to participation might include: language, fees, travel costs, etc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed  it may

  matthw shears:we then need an accepted set of criteria that could be used to measure accountability of the SOs and ACs - approptiately tailored to the ICANN space - we are jumping the gun by having discussions of representation.  such a topic has to be measured against something and the AC/SOs performance  - but we need criteria first

  Steve DelBianco:Criteria are in the bylaws, Matthew:  effectiveness and accountability.  Now we are trying to add specifics to those criteria

  matthw shears:no mic sorry

  Alan Greenberg:Hard stop on the hour. CWG-IANA

  Kavouss. Arasteh:There is no need that I  prepare  ANY DOC.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we always capture the Chat

  matthw shears:thanks Steve - happy to

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THANS ALL Bye for now


  Tatiana Tropina:bye

  jorge villa (ASO):bye!

  Christian Dawson:Thanks all

  Rosalia Morales:thanks bye!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye   We will follow the existing Master schedule I assume

  • No labels