Sub-group Members:   Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christian Dawson, Christopher Wilkinson, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Isaac Maposa, John Curran, Jorge Villa, Juan Alejo Peirano, Julf Helsingius, Matthew Shears, Olga Cavalli, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina   (21)

Observer:  Taylor Bentley

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Karen Mulberry, 

Apologies:  Kavouss Arasteh, Sebastien Bachollet

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




1. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies (2min- Staff)

2. Welcome - Opening Remarks  (3min- SDB, FB, CLO)

3. Review (brief) of last call #3 and any Action Items / Business Arising (5 min- SDB, FB)

4. Discussion (25 min)

- To whom are the SO/ACs accountable to

- What are the SO/ACs accountable for

- Discuss Matt's suggestion to start from track three: "Develop a detailed working plan on enhancing SO and AC accountability 
taking into consideration the comments made during the public comment period on the Third Draft Proposal."

5.  AOB / Next Meeting (5min)



1. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies (2min- Staff)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr audio only

2. Welcome - Opening Remarks  (3min- SDB, FB, CLO)

    • Steve DelBianco: There was no clear decision on SO/AC accountability question at the CCWG plenary on last Tuesday. Will present the slides presented at the plenary. (presentation of slides )
    • Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ccNSO has always sought non-member participantion. Other SOACs may also have other interesting and  unique mechanisms they use.
    • Farzaneh Badii: 2 questions are who are we accountable to and what are we accountable for.
    • Steve DelBianco: We know SO's are responsible to their members per the Bylaws - what we are looking at is do we need to increase this accountability.
    • Christopher Wilkinson: The Bylaws are clear. What we are talking about is the accountability of the delegates of the SOACs in the new Empowered Community. The incremental new accountability in the new accountability scheme in ICANN.
    • Farzaneh Badii: the MAR could be used as a soft approach to share best practices. Given there are no other questions let us move to the next agenda item.
    • Matthew Shears: the issue of scope has to be agreed - Christopher's approach (I understand) seeks to look at what the new accountability requirements post transition, but others, including myself, believe that this is about the accountability of SOs and ACs generally, not jsyt post transition

3. Review (brief) of last call #3 and any Action Items / Business Arising (5 min- SDB, FB)


4. Discussion (25 min)

- To whom are the SO/ACs accountable to

- What are the SO/ACs accountable for

- Discuss Matt's suggestion to start from track three: "Develop a detailed working plan on enhancing SO and AC accountability 
taking into consideration the comments made during the public comment period on the Third Draft Proposal."


    • Mathew Shears: accountability has 4 dimensions: Transparency, Consultation, Review, Redress. We should consider this when 
      considering how to scope our work. MAR may be a distraction, we should start with the workplan. 
    • Steve DelBianco: Appendix C contains a number of elements for ICANN when we began the work on WS1 and it may not be 
      reasonable to think we should apply this to SOACs.
    • Mathew Shears: agree Steve. But we have addressed and resolved some of these criteria in WS1 and see if they could apply 
      although many may not apply.
    • Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mathew Shear's suggestion has meritt to explore these aspects and should be pursued. This could provide the basis 
      for several sections of our report.
    • Steve DelBianco: Our charter says Review and Develop and we have to do the reviews to identify gaps. If you have criteria 
      ahead of time it makes it easier to identify those potential gaps.
    • Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If we actually capture what is going on now and compare it will be very useful.
    • Athina Fragkouli: These should not be hard criteria - more points of reference.
    • Mathew Shears: We need to work with the SO and ACs if we are going to succeed. 
    • Steve Delbianco: If members from the SO and ACs could come back at the next meeting to present the accountability 
      mechanisms in each of these which are NOT in the Bylaws.

5.  AOB / Next Meeting (5min)

    • Steve DelBianco: Adjourned.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hello all

  Farzaneh Badii:Hi

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:our Google Doc is at

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA):Good evening

  Tatiana Tropina:Hello eveyone

  Avri Doria:yes it is possible.  called sharing screen

  Isaac Maposa:Hi everyone

  Avri Doria:though anyone who can see AC, can porbably just opne up the doc. unless we are live editting.

  Christopher Wilkinson:Good evening. Apologies for missing recent calls. CW

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):hello all

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Bernie, thanks for displaying that, but it does not show the comment bubbles from our participants.   Let's just diplay a clen doc,  and folks can open the Google Doc in their own browser to see the comment

  Avri Doria:what is the url of google doc?

  Farzaneh Badii:

  Avri Doria:thanks

  Christopher Wilkinson:I got the google doc  but there are no comment bubbles. Just highlighting and red font.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:works for me

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA):No bubbles for me either

  Christopher Wilkinson:Ah, there is a tiny icon to click upon to see the comments!

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA):Ah, worked for me in firefox, but not in chrome

  Christopher Wilkinson:I am in Chrome.

  Christian Dawson:Apologies for arriving late

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:the Mutual Accountability Roundtable is described by Willie Currie, at page 8 of our Google Doc.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:we randomly selected ccNSO as the example.  There was not attempt to scrutinize ccNSO in these slides

  Juan Alejo Peirano:Hi everyone!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:just a note the second agenda item is review of the last call?

  matthew shears:the issue of scope has to be agreed - Christopher's approach (I understand) seeks to look at what the new accountability requirements post transition, but others, including myself, believe that this is about the accountability of SOs and ACs generally, not jsyt post transition

  matthew shears:just

  Christopher Wilkinson:Well, they are accountable to their members for the positions that they take, including votes, on each specific issue that is addressed in the post transition strucutres.

  Christopher Wilkinson:Matthew: we don't need a WS2 review to address existing practice. There is more than enough to do with that which is NEW post transition. CW

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Matthew's text is in the Google Doc.  But it does not display in the PDF in Adobe now.   I believe that is becuase of the font color, but not sure

  matthew shears:agree Steve

  Karen Mulberry:I have captured Appendix C and placed it on the screen

  matthew shears:agreed Steve - but we have to start somewhere

  matthew shears:you have put it much better than me Cheryl - thanks

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:I note that the Adobe display is showing part of the text Matthew added.  But it is not showing the 5 criteria that Matthew entered just above Appendix C

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):yes I do, thank you for referring to my comment

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:those were:  1) representation, 2) inclusion, 3)transparency, 4)reporting, and 5) responsibility

  matthew shears:thanks Steve - those were suggestions as to how - if we agreed that was the appropriate way forward - the SOs and ACs might evaluate their accountability (suggestions only, for discussion of course)

  Karen Mulberry:Here are the five items from the Google doc:  1) representation - is the diversity of persons and interests adequately represented and sought out?2) inclusion - are the views of the community solicited and taken into account?3) transparency - are decisions and other procedural matters open, clear and transparent?4) reporting - are the decisions reported back to the broader community/is the community kept informed?5) responsibility - are there clear mechanisms to hold the community and decision-makers responsible for their actions/to hold them to account? 

  matthew shears:agree Steve

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Note: 10 minutes to the top of the hour

  Olga Cavalli:Hi sorry I had conectivity problems

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:4 minute notice

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):I agree with Mathew that this work should be done in coordination with the SO/ACs

  jorge villa (ASO):it's important to defino to whom an SO/AC has to be accountable. It's very different to say "it must be accountable to..." than "it should be accountable for.."

  Christopher Wilkinson:Transparency: lthird parties need to be able to see how SOAC reach their positions and be assured that the positions taken are on the accountability to the SOAC members.

  Avri Doria:bye. thanks

  Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA):Thanks everybody!

  matthew shears:thanks all

  Tatiana Tropina:Thanks all! bye

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you all!

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:thanks all

  Christopher Wilkinson:Goodnight. Thankyou  CW

  Juan Alejo Peirano:thanks!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all

  Olga Cavalli:bye thanks

  • No labels