Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Herb Waye, Julf Helsingius, Karel Douglas, Lito Ibarra, Lori Schulman, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Samantha Eisner.  (10)


Staff:  Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Charla Shambley, Karen Mulberry, Laena Rahim, Yvette Guigneaux.  (6)

 

Apologies:  

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

 

Transcript

Recording

Agenda

Work Stream 2 -

Guidelines for Standard of Conduct Presumed to Be Good Faith with Exercising Removal of ICANN Board Members

- September 28, 2016

1. Attendance

2. Changes to SOI

3. Brainstorming for Guidelines for Standard of Conduct
a. How are members removed now? Has anyone ever been removed?
b. What good practices are we trying to promote when making a claim?

Verifying facts
Who verifies
Standard form for investigation
Choosing the SO/AC member to bring the claim
Should it be a standardized process?
Up to each SO/AC
Confronting the Board member/members with verified facts?
Should there be a standard form of complaint?
Opportunity to correct?
Should different types of claims be subject to different standards of verification?
Is it helpful to categorize claims without naming an exhaustive list?
Behavior unbecoming a Board member vs. Action contrary to by-laws?

4. October 12 Call Cancelled


5. AOB

Notes

Rapporteur: Lori Schulman

1. Administration
Overview of the working methods and use of WS1 recommendations and NTIA criteria to assist in determining standards and recommendations from the group.

2. Brainstorming for Guidelines for Standard of Conduct

a. How are members removed now? Has anyone ever been removed?

Discussion - has anyone every been removed and is the Board the only entity that can remove a member.

Up until now only the Board has the right to remove members but they have never removed anyone under the new process the community can also remove members.

Do not want to create a cumbersome process and want to keep inline with duties prescribed in the law for Board members and the basic standard may not be enough for ICANN as they may need to be held to a higher standard. It was noted that the Board has incorporated some guidance on how it would consider removal of Board members, such as within the Board Code of Conduct and the Guidelines for that Code of Conduct

Each SO/ACs will set own processes to address the process that they will undertake.

Trying to put some words around what it means to do something in good faith. Might be a broad standard that applies to the entire community and that people must verify the facts.

Is there a standard that applies to the entire community? or does the action come up from the SO/ACs and the process that they set.

It was noted from the chat - think we need a degree of expectations not wide variance in the AC/SO processes though Alan thus 'Guidelines'
and : sited expectations of the AC or SO for their Members conduct and role not being met' should be OK to action and "without cause per se

Need to set up expectation guidelines for SO/ACs to look through as part of their own processes. Might be worth while to establish some guideline principles for fare and reasonable conduct.

Should note that SO/AC should note decisions made by formal processes, including the rational for the decision as well as to appoint the formal spokespersons for the group.

Note that this could mean that each SO/AC must have a formal process to bring a claim forward, rules of procedure by which they will make decisions to take a formal action.

Every SO/AC has a decision making process. and the process needs to include a means to document the decision made and the steps taken to reach the decision. The process should be aligned with the process used to select the groups board member should be similar to the one use to take action to remove a Board member. There may be some exceptions to the applying such a principle, Noncom was used as a example. Should not be too prescriptive in the process.

Note - the charged always has a right of response and has the right to end the process by resigning (are we sure there was never any thought of Board on Board removal - or just none ever got all the way )

The Board would still retain the ability to remove a director if convicted of a crime

b. What good practices are we trying to promote when making a claim?

Discussion:

AOB

ACTION ITEM
Lori will send to the list a summary of the items discussed and possible approaches that could be undertaken.

Documents Presented

None.

Chat Transcript

  Yvette Guigneaux:Greetings everyone, welcome to the WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith Subgroup Meeting #2 | 19:00 UTC | Wednesday, 28 September!

  Julf Helsingius:Good evening!

  Herb Waye Ombuds:Bonjour Yvette, Hello all...

  Yvette Guigneaux:Bonjour Herb

  Karel Douglas:Hi ALL

  Julf Helsingius:Somebody out on  ascooter?

  Herb Waye Ombuds:Hi Cheryl, snakes and chickens getting along?

  Karel Douglas:Yes LOL...sounds like it

  Lori Schulman:Good afternoon or whatever...

  Lori Schulman:It's raining here and I made my first batch of squash soup for the season.  No more gazapacho.

  Karel Douglas:I;m hearing someone typing

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):HI All  Herb  best thay can do  and with the help of large breed choices  for the chooks  not the snakes .... allthough ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sounds yummy Lori

  Yvette Guigneaux:Just dialed you in Lori

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):much better

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am leaning towards your Option B Laurie

  Yvette Guigneaux:Hello everyone, I see a listing for unavailable - would you be so kind as to identify yourself?

  Samantha Eisner 2:The ICANN Board has incorporated some guidance on how it would consider removal of Board members, such as within the Board Code of Conduct and the Guidelines for that Code of Conduct

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx  Sam Noted

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I think we need a degree of expectations  not wide varience  in the AC/SO processes though Alan  thus  'Guidelines'

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:stted expecttions of the AC or SO  for their Members conduct and role not being met'  should be OK  to action and "without cause per se

  Avri Doria:or never talks to them, never explains anything

  Avri Doria:i thought the reasons were not limited

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Yes  I thought unlimited was importnt Avri

  Avri Doria:and dont they need to convince other ACSO?  if so doesn't it need to be reasonable, i.e pass the giggle test.

  Avri Doria:for some definiton of reasonable based on the impressions of the other ACSO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Indeed Avri

  Avri Doria:so yeah, they need to follw their processes and need to be reasonable enough to convinces others they should talk about it.

  Herb Waye Ombuds:Cheryl, can't reply in other chat... doesn't sound familiar but I will check

  Karel Douglas:Shouldnt there be one formal process univeral to all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Thx  Herb

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Yes Alan  Tht we agree on  THAT is essential

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:I think it would be a very silly ALAC  that did not engage the RALO Chair/Leadership  in some 'formal way' (even if that is just discussion or advice)  in the extraordinary Action of their own Board Member removal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Yes Avri  High level stuff as the Guidelines  Your examples  are good  IMO

  Julf Helsingius:yes

  Avri Doria:correct is a funny term, assumes there is something wrong - no i did not alwasy weear purple pants - but rather they have the ability to insert their case in to the EC in repsonse. maybe?

  Alan Greenberg:I think WS1 did specify that there needs to be an interaction between the AC/SO and Director.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:I think the correction  option is more the mndate of the AC/SO Process...  That is the club Membership equivelent  IMO  the Board Member is from

  Avri Doria:the charged alwasy has a right of repsonse.and has the right to edn the process by resigining (are we sure there was never any thought of Board on Board removel  - or just none ever got all the way )

  Samantha Eisner 2:The Board would still retain the ability to remove a director if convicted of a crime

  Avri Doria:ieant at the EC level.

  Avri Doria:i meant ...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Yes Sm  This my mention tht the crime exmple was 'cause'

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Sm - Sam

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:and of course  there is the issue of what is "illigal" in different jurisdictions  DO  NOT want to go there!

  Avri Doria:subjective but explained qnd accpeted by others

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:nice language to capture  the matter Avri  we need to cpture that

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:hi.

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:input being developed. yes.

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Lito is lead liaison, Lori.

  Lito Ibarra:That's ok

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Thanks Lori  Thanks everyone...  Bye for now

  Avri Doria:well i think there has been enough conversation for a draft to be written up before we talk again.

  Avri Doria:but i am not the rapporteur of this one

  Avri Doria:so easy for me to say

  Avri Doria:yes on staff acct

  Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Go quills. Thanks everyone.

  Avri Doria:bye

  Julf Helsingius:Thank you everyone, bye

  Avri Doria:thanks

  Lito Ibarra:Bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:bye

  Lori Schulman:Ciao.


  • No labels