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).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2k7zaar663/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-25aug16-en.mp3
Agenda
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
Notes
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 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTRZZJ9B3Q6BHP6AlDHmoiep8NeshNpomBNM4bBXYpA/edit?ts=57ba7a43
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 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTRZZJ9B3Q6BHP6AlDHmoiep8NeshNpomBNM4bBXYpA/edit?ts=57ba7a43
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:aCCOUNTABILTY AND MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY ARE VERY COMPLEX TO DEFINE, DESCRIBE, GOVERNED AND IMPLEMENTED
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.
Kavouss. Arasteh:pLS TAKE THE RECORD AND CHAT CONTENT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we always capture the Chat
matthw shears:thanks Steve - happy to
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THANS ALL Bye for now
FIONA ASONGA:Bye
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
