Attendees: 

Members:   Alan Greenberg, Andreea Brambilla, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Fiona Asonga, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Kavouss Arasteh, Michael Abejuela, Olga Cavalli, Robin Gross, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (14)

Participants:  Andrew Mack, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brian Scarpelli, Christopher Wilkinson, Collin Kurre, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Julf Helsingius, Khaled Koubaa, Kris Seeburn, Lori Schulman, Milton Mueller, Niels ten Oever, Phil Marano, Philip Corwin, Stephen Deerhake, Tatiana Tropina, Wale Bakare   (24)

Observers/Guests:  Dina Solveig Jalkanen

ICANN Organization:  Brenda Brewer, Bernard Turcotte, Elizabeth AndrewsNathalie Vergnolle, Patrick Dodson, Yvette Guigneaux

Apologies:  Rosalía Morales, Leon Sanchez, Matthew Shears

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


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 

2. Review of Agenda

3. Administration

4. Legal Committee Update

5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)

6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group.

7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group.

8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group.

9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group 

10. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group. 

11. AOB

12. Next Plenaries 

13. Adjournment

Raw Caption Notes

Decisions:

  • The Ombuds report is not accepted by the plenary for a first reading. The plenary asks the sub-group to address the points made at the meeting and re-submit a version which addresses these concerns for the meeting of 11 October if possible.
  • Next meeting: 1300UTC - 11 October 2017

Action Items:

  • Ombus sub-group – re-submit their draft recommendations for a first reading by the plenary.

Requests:

  • Reminder to all that this is the home stretch if documents do not complete a first reading at the 18 October plenary they cannot complete their public consultation in time and will not be included in the final report of WS2.

Documents

AC Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (9/28/2017 13:10) Good day!  Welcome to WS2 CCWG Accountability Plenary Meeting #22 on 28 September 2017 @ 19:00 UTC.

  Brenda Brewer: (13:10) This meeting will be recorded.  Please mute your phone when not speaking by pressing *6 (star 6). *6 will also unmute.

  Brenda Brewer: (13:10) Please state your name when speaking for captioning/transcription.  Thank you!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:37) Hi Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:38) hi Niels

  Brenda Brewer: (13:43) Hello!

  Niels ten Oever: (13:47) Hi Kavouss, Hi Brenda, Hi Yvette

  Yvette Guigneaux: (13:49) Hi there Niels & everyone

  olga: (13:50) Hello all from Buenos Aires!!

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:52) hi all

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:52) Hi niels...

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:52) how is that PhD working out?

  Niels ten Oever: (13:53) I think it's too early to tell :))

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:54) i know... so you got your write up ideas

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:54) I've done two with a PhD and then a Post Doc to another DSc..i know the work :)

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:55) But am used to helping students :)

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:55) I would wish you loads of luck and courage in preparing

  Niels ten Oever: (13:56) Thanks a lot! I will probably need it  :D

  Brenda Brewer: (13:56) Kavouss, we are having trouble reaching your hotel number

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (13:56) Well if you are confident and you get a good guide am sure it works out

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:58) Pls kindly advise the operator to dial me up Abu Dhabi Number

  Brenda Brewer: (13:58) I have given that number, Kavouss, and they are having issues today.  Yesterday it worked fine.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:59) Hi all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (13:59) hi all

  Julf Helsingius: (13:59) hi

  Michael Abejuela (ASO): (13:59) Hello everyone

  Brenda Brewer: (14:00) Happy to see Kavouss' number has been connected now

  Khaled KOUBAA: (14:00) Hello everyone

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:00) we will kick off at 2 past

  Julf Helsingius: (14:01) Bit of backjground hiss there

  Niels ten Oever: (14:01) Are you more talkative today Jordan?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:02) does anyone else hear pinging in background on phone?

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (14:03) no, I don't, David

  Bernnard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:03) no

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:03) Thanks - must be my line

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:04) Now lost line completely - will dial back in

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:05) Phone battery dead - only on adobe

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:06) @David - Getting you a Lewis Roca promo charge bank for next ICANN meeting.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:06) O do not remember that being said rather the oposite in fact

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:06) We hope that this call will take only an hour, but it is up to all the participants

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:08) thanks @Anne

  Bernnard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:08) Sebastien you are now a presenter

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:11) Sebastien if you use the arrows at the bottom left of the screen it will skip full slides

  Lori Schulman: (14:14) Hello

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (14:15) HI Lori

  Lori Schulman: (14:15) My apologies for yesterday.  Glad I could make it today.  Only 5 hours of ICANN calls today....

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (14:15) Thanks for joining under these cuircustances, Lori

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:16) MY LINSE IS INTERRUPTED

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:17) Hi  Lori

  Yvette Guigneaux: (14:17) working on getting your line back Kavouss

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) TKS

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:18) WAITING FOR DIAL

  Yvette Guigneaux: (14:19) understood Kavouss - working on dial out now

  Yvette Guigneaux: (14:21) ok Kavouss, your line should be good now

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:21) Milton makes a fair point

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (14:21) I agree.

  Milton Mueller: (14:22) oh so it's not an accountability function it's about personal disputes?

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:22) OK, good to know

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:22) well we should say that it won't resolve policy disputes. clearly

  Milton Mueller: (14:23) well does the Ombuds overrule policy decisions made by SOs?

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:23) no it should not

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:24) The Ombuds office could not :overrule" anything

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:24) it should not give an opinion about any substantive poicy matters.

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:24) Any effort by the Ombuds attempting to make a policy decision (or overrde same) of the ccNSO is a non-starter.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:25) Not being proposed at all STephen

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:25) regardless of the nonbinding nature it should not recommend anything regarding substantive matters . we should be clear on that

  Wale Bakare: (14:25) Hi all

  Milton Mueller: (14:26) Hello Wale

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:26) there is no chance of that, Stephen

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:26) Noted NP

  Milton Mueller: (14:26) same should be true for GNSO

  Wale Bakare: (14:26) Thanks Milton, good afternoon/evening

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:27) Good edit suggestions Laoi ....  Happy to support

  Milton Mueller: (14:28) What's a KPI?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:28) Lori  (sorry typos)

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:28) Key Performance Indicator

  Milton Mueller: (14:28) thx

  Brenda Brewer: (14:28) Reminder:  Please state your name when speaking for captioning/transcription.  Thank you!

  Milton Mueller: (14:28) yes, hard to measure fairness

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:29) Milton this is why I kinda always have problems with KPIs they are mostly quantitative

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:29) Time taken to respond and report all sorts of things can be "measured? as performance indicators

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:29) deffinatly  Seb

  Jeff Neuman: (14:29) KPIs can be stablished on things like responsiveness, processing complaints, etc

  Jeff Neuman: (14:29) Cheryl i should have read your response :)

  Jeff Neuman: (14:30) But there are plenty areas of KPIs

  Lori Schulman: (14:30) thank you

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:30) time check - 90 minutes left in call

  Jeff Neuman: (14:30) MTTR (Mean time to respond)

  Jeff Neuman: (14:30) Satisfaction survey results

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:33) The Scope of the Ombuds Office is quite clear IMO  

  Jeff Neuman: (14:33) Isnt ICANN working on that to distinguish between the Ombudsman and the Complaints Officer

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:33) I agree with Kavouss

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:33) Yes Jeff I believe so

  Jeff Neuman: (14:34) We should not reinvent the wheel and look at that

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:34) report should say what is not within the scope of ombuds (including substantive policy)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:34) there is no reinvention intended

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:34) it should be in the report

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:35) it is a set of imporvements suggestions to ensure our ICANN Ombuds practice is based on the External Review input to continuously improve and be in line with Ombuds Best Practices

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:35) Lori

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (14:37) Agree with Farzaneh about the need to clarify scope (including limitations) in the report.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:38) If there is only 1 person in the office it's hard to have gender diversity

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:38) if there is 3 then some diversity is expected

  Lori Schulman: (14:38) Agree on gender mix especially given ICANN's harassment policies

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:38) Agree with Farz

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:38) + 1 farzaneh

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (14:39) Agree with Farzi

  Niels ten Oever: (14:39) +1 Farz

  Dina Solveig Jalkanen: (14:39) +

  Milton Mueller: (14:39) So as I understand it Farzaneh is saying that gender diversity is required, but other forms are subject to practicality?

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:39) yes Milton

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:40) Agree with Farzaneh

  Milton Mueller: (14:40) OK, would agree then

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:40) gender should not be subject to practicality

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:41) I am talkijg about gender diversity.that's it

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:42) the opportunity has to be there! ombuds should become an office!not a one person hired by board

  Dina Solveig Jalkanen: (14:42) Whoever is selected should be aware of gender issue being real and have basic understanding that it is not limited to male or female - all diversity should have respectful and understanding approach and possibility to address the issues if not.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:42) COMMENT: Two Ombuds are better anyway - in case one has a conflict

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:42) +1 jeff

  Tatiana Tropina: (14:43) Anne that is a good point

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:43) Absolutly My view Jeff  I don't go for quota's  either though

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:43) at least one woman yes

  Milton Mueller: (14:43) two women is as non-diverse as two men. I don't get it, Jeff

  Wale Bakare: (14:43) The language "should" not necessarily comprises of two

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:43) Okay if at least one woman

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:43) I think the way the wording is on the screen summons up a commitment to diversity that is right and proper, without causing any problematics

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:44) I didnt say fifty fifty I just said gender diversity should not be subject to practicality should be there by default!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) I have a question, what is /are those issues that IOO shall not deal with?

  Jeff Neuman: (14:44) 2 women and 1 men

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:44) Our WG believes this langguage allows for the aspirations and intentions of building Diversity in the office of the Ombuds  quite well Thoma

  Wale Bakare: (14:44) It is an open two selection

  Jeff Neuman: (14:44) man :)  All I am saying is that we should not disctate a quota

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:44) Thomas

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:44) yes . subject to practicality should not be there for gender

  Wale Bakare: (14:44) Exactly, the language seems confusing

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:44) yes . subject to practicality should not be there for gender

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:45) "subject to practicality" is redundant anyway, because it says ideally right in front of it.

  Jeff Neuman: (14:45) i agree

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:45) "subject to practicality" may apply to NFL football players, not professional Ombudspersons

  Dina Solveig Jalkanen: (14:45) :)

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:46) +1 kavouss

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:46) that is a good way....because it opens a can of worms

  Wale Bakare: (14:46) +1 Kavouss

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:46) the clock makes me feel like in a NBA game...

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:47) @jorge LOL!

  Wale Bakare: (14:47) And i think that statement should completely reworded, IMHO

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:47) You have a uniform

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) Sebastien, pls kindly reply to my question ,tks

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:48) i like the proposal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:48) simple enough change

  Milton Mueller: (14:48) Jorge: 1 second left to make a shot!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:49) deleting "(subject to practicality)" is the proposal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:49) correct

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:49) I support this change

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (14:49) i support that

  Wale Bakare: (14:49) Supported

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:50) eh I don't like "ideally" I know what will happen. but I dont have an objection

  Dina Solveig Jalkanen: (14:50) I would love to see more gender diversity but not tying up the options in the statement. Two people are better than one, which does not necessarily mean any of them can not be of not standard gender at any point in the future.

  Dina Solveig Jalkanen: (14:50) So +1, yes

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:51) Sebasiten, I repaet again , what are the uissues or areas that IOO shall not intervene?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:52) isn't it the same as today, Kavouss? I haven't read anything that suggests otherwise so far

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:52) The line is distorted

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:52) so 5-6 members from within the community? or are they outsiders

  Milton Mueller: (14:52) there is all kinds of language in the slides Jordan about "reconfiguring" the office

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:53) QUESTION: Can the Ombuds take diversity complaints?  (Relates to the issue yesterday re "Office of Diversity". QUESTION

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:53) @Kavouss see this  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_ombudsman&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=moRikC7OmK473qXzvzzlBw2hKbr9mlZVQ8xd1qW4B1o&s=pRInE5iVYHxo39qQgn-9Lh1VKaoNH1eojQmRIFFV7nk&e=   => The Ombudsman's function is to act as an informal dispute resolution office for the ICANN community, who may wish to lodge a complaint about ICANN staff, board or problems in supporting organizations. The purpose of the office is to ensure that the members of the ICANN community have been treated fairly. The Ombudsman is impartial and will attempt to resolve complaints about unfair treatment, using  techniques like mediation, shuttle diplomacy and if needed, formal investigation. The Ombudsman is not an advocate for you, but will investigate without taking sides in a dispute. The process is informal, and flexible.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:53) There is strong distortion when Jeff Spoke

  Wale Bakare: (14:53) @Farzaneh, likely from within the ICANN

  Milton Mueller: (14:53) and isn't ICANN Corp responsible for commissioning independent reviews of all other ACs and SOs? Why a special arrangement for Ombuddy?

  jorge villa (aso): (14:53) hi folks, unfortunately i have to go to another meeting. have a very productive meeting

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:54) and from same page => The ICANN Ombudsman has jurisdiction over complaints which arise from things which happen in the communityThe Ombudsman cannot make, change or set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission, but may investigate these events, and to use ADR technique to resolve them and make recommendations as to changes.The Ombudsman cannot investigate issues between a domain name registrar and a domain name holder, nor can the office help with website content or spam or malware. However the Ombudsman will try to find the best place to help with these issues and refer the visitor.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:55) the page should be cited in the report

  Milton Mueller: (14:55) agree

  Jeff Neuman: (14:56) I just do not understand the need for people with "ICANN experience"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:56) Easy enough to do  it is referenced of course in the IE's full report I believe

  Jeff Neuman: (14:56) Skilled Ombudspersons can do their job in any environment

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:56) COMMENT:  I tend to agree with Jeff - if what he said is that confidential matters should no be discussed by the Advisory Panel with the ICANN Board.

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (14:56) Wow – yet another Panel with a unclear role

  Milton Mueller: (14:56) Agree Finn

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:56) yeah

  Jeff Neuman: (14:57) I agree that there are way too many panels

  Jeff Neuman: (14:57) even if the role is clear

  Stephen Deerhake: (14:58) Time to hire more Staff!

  Jeff Neuman: (14:58) We need more volunteers in the policy process in dealing with the matters ICANN was commissioned to do.  Now there are more volunteers for accountability functions that for doing what ICANN is here to do

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:58) panels don't solve real problems. but we have panel and advisory fetish at ICANN

  Wale Bakare: (14:59) Would rather give that to staff than volunteers

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:59) That is specifically stated as NOT the purpose Kaviuss see my coy of text above

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (14:59) Kavouss, nobody is proposing any changes from today

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:00) Kavouss sorry typo of your name

  Jeff Neuman: (15:00) I see one of the key roles of the ombudsperson is to help with ensuring the Code of Conduct / Standards of Behavoir

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:00) if there is no problem today there would be no problem tomorrow

  Jeff Neuman: (15:00) is adhered to

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:00) INdeed  Jeff as do many of us

  Greg Shatan: (15:00) "I don't think this means what you say it means"

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (15:01)  A Panel  could also potentially undermine the role of the Ombudsman

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:01) Today ,we have also serious problem with the authority og OM

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:01) Time Check - 59 minutes left in call

  Milton Mueller: (15:03) Either I missed it, or there was never a very strong justification for what problem this Advisory Panel solves

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:03)  Bernie, maybe we need a game clock along with the shot clock

  Milton Mueller: (15:04) :-)

  Jeff Neuman: (15:04) Unless it is Advising the Board on matters on how to comport itself when there are complaints against the board for violating things like the expected standards of behavoir

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:04) @David working on it

  Jeff Neuman: (15:05) OR adivising the Board on what it could do to make sure the community is made more aware of improvements that can be made to comport with the standards of behavoir

  Milton Mueller: (15:05) maybe we need a cuckoo clock, too

  Milton Mueller: (15:06) Jeff, is the Ombuds office currently not subject to regular review?

  Brenda Brewer: (15:06) Tics are on upper menu bar far right

  Greg Shatan: (15:06) @David, the "game clock" would be a good idea.  After all, one can eat an elephant in small bites, if one is allowed enough bites.

  Brenda Brewer: (15:06) under raised hand icon

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:06) Issue is scope of panel's role

  Jeff Neuman: (15:06) But 11 red from a pretty diverse set of groups

  Jeff Neuman: (15:06) GAC members, RySG members, IPC members

  Jeff Neuman: (15:06) erc,

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:06) there were fifteen red crosses

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:07) @Greg, LOL ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:07) there are five green hands

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:07) 5

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:07) six

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:07) But NOT to advise both the Ombuds and the Board at the same time on the same matter

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:07) 6 now

  Milton Mueller: (15:08) She supports the idea of a Panel, though

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:08) that was counted Milton

  avri doria: (15:09) and a bunch that could accept it but are not strong propo nents

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (15:10) + 1 jeff

  Wale Bakare: (15:10) Thanks, Jeff

  Lori Schulman: (15:11) good point Jeff

  Jeff Neuman: (15:11) thanks

  Wale Bakare: (15:11) That is a good observation

  Jeff Neuman: (15:14) The determination of "for cause" should be ratified by the empowered community

  Jeff Neuman: (15:14) But I am not sure how that could be done practically

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (15:15) it has to be very very indepedent agreed

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:15) I often agree w/Farzi but on this it seems to me that fixed term contract is one good step – perfect independence may not be achievable if the Ombuds is to be paid

  Milton Mueller: (15:15) But it's not fixed term

  Milton Mueller: (15:15) It's got a 1 year probationery and a 3 year extension

  Milton Mueller: (15:16) Anyone seeking job security would make sure they keep the board happy

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:16) it's not the lenght of contract that will fix the independence problem. livelihood should not be dependent on it

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:16) This is a point (from Farzi)nI just object to and have dine so cinsistently each tie she raised it

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:16) i do see concern with 'probationary' period - who judges that

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:16) I have to go now I hope my concern is addressed

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:16) Agree with David - what are the terms of the probation?

  Milton Mueller: (15:16) if your case for independence rests entirely on the term, then make it 5 years flat and then it ends, no discretion

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:17) yes cheryl I will repeat it I talk from my expertise with working on dispute resolution systems and I know ICANN too well to have a valid opinion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:17) we dn't need the EC to do that. because the EC can do other things if the Board does something strange with the Ombuds

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:17) now I have to go will raise the independence issue of ombuds until it is actually solved

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:17) bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:18) indeed we did extensively discussed Seb

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:18) Jeff hand?

  Jeff Neuman: (15:18) yes

  Jeff Neuman: (15:19) new one

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:19) ok

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:19) What is her amendment exavctly?

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:19) I am back. my meeting is not now apparently. have another 40 minutes to spend on ICANN

  Milton Mueller: (15:20) Does the panel HIRE the Ombudsman? As well as rule on cause?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:21) Good Idea Jeff

  Milton Mueller: (15:22) Can we wait I have a point to make

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:22) and Remember when Thomas is saying  as "suggested by Sebastien"  he should be saying the IOO WG

  Milton Mueller: (15:22) We need to discuss it more

  Jeff Neuman: (15:23) I agree with recommendation 9; I agree that the contract may not have enough protections, i do not agree on the anti fraternization rule

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:23) Green if it is supported *as is* on the screen

  Jeff Neuman: (15:23) and then propose the panel solely for ratify that for cause

  avri doria: (15:23) btww, is this voting or polling.

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:23) this paragraph 9 does not add anything to ombuds independence we have to change the whole design of ombuds

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:24) @Cheryl - what is red?   That we don't support without amendments?

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (15:24) we do a poll

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (15:24) @avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:24) And Jeff I AGREE with you (on this)

  avri doria: (15:24) i guess if they are decsional they are votes. if not they are polls.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:24) Red as I interpreted  was if you seek to make a change either  as outside at arms length office  or anything else

  avri doria: (15:25) aren't they for informing the subgroup of the temperature in the room on various issues?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:25) COMMENT -  agree - maybe Advisory Panel should both HIRE and then advise the Ombudsman and determine probationary period and "for cause" termination.  COMMENT

  avri doria: (15:25) so they wouldn't eliminate a recommendation but would let the subgroup know they had something to further consider. and maybe change.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:25) exactly Thomas => lets remember these were recommendations by a specialist contractor who does this for a living and compared against industry best practices.

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:26) we need to work on independence more. this recommendation does not add anything to independence.

  Jeff Neuman: (15:26) ONly reason I have an "X" is because I would like to see some improvements on the notion of "good cause"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:27) and I trust we will watch the diversity of where the views cime from as well Thomas

  Jeff Neuman: (15:27) I dont care about the term or only allowing the ombudsman to be terminated by cause

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:27) Remember people that we only have a couple of calls left to land everything, including this topic

  avri doria: (15:27) and remeber the silent group. who are not on either side.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:27) Can you suggest  some text Jeff

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:28) There appears to be an even split among those participating in the poll.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:28) Kavouss, that question doesn't help us work through these recommendations

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:28) the recommendations of this group does not enhance the independence of ombuds office

  Jeff Neuman: (15:28) can we take one element at a time

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:28) good point @Avri, I considered abstaing on this close issue but on balance decided to vote

  avri doria: (15:29) i think it does enahnce, but possibly not enough

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:29) and remeber how "successful"  some of ICANNs experience has been when using fully Independent Outside Offices for things

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:29) to poll, rather

  Jeff Neuman: (15:29) I agreement 9 (a) and 9(b) IF we strengthen 9(b) a little

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:29) fair outcome Thomas

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:29) I think the easy fix is bring back Advisory Panel but only in relation to consulting the Ombudsman, not the Board.  Presumably the panel is independent.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:29) I do, Thomas

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (15:29) what are the poll numbers?

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:29) I lost audio

  Wale Bakare: (15:29) 8 For, 7 Against

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:29) time check - 30 minutes left in call

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (15:30) reshaped yes

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:30) currently six green ticks and six red crosses, it was 6/8 for/against before

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:30) it's back ...

  Jeff Neuman: (15:30) agree with reshaping

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (15:30) 8 red and 6 green is my count

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:30) @Robin - I think it was about 9 versus 9

  Jeff Neuman: (15:30) I like #10

  avri doria: (15:30) and how many of did not poll?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:30) Please all, clear your ticks and crosses

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (15:30) can everyone clear their polls

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:30) Rec. 10 looks good

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLDs): (15:30) Avri: a solid majority, there are around 35 participants on the call

  avri doria: (15:31) let remeber those numbers too.

  Jeff Neuman: (15:31) I think the questions in 11 are all valid ones

  Jeff Neuman: (15:33) and good

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:33) These seem well considered – are they in response to issues that have been raised?

  Milton Mueller: (15:33) yes, I hvae the same response. These are all good questions

  Milton Mueller: (15:34) but it is unclear how or whether they will be answered

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:34) @Milton - maybe that is another function of Advisory Panel if reinstated recommendation only for purposes of hiring and supervising Ombuds

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:34) Pls remind Sebastien to reply to my questions raised and repeated for the second time

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:35) I want the independence question to be answered. does the group think recommeendations sufficiently enhance independence of ombudsoffice

  Milton Mueller: (15:35) so here we go, an hour ago there is "no change at all" to Ombuds authority, but here we are talking about "duties and powers" that may be "enhanced"

  Milton Mueller: (15:35) Anne: Yes, that would be a worthwhile recommendation

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:37) So Advisory Panel role + hir Ombudspersons, ensure diversity, determine termsof probation, determine any firing for cause, detremine answers to questions in Recommendation 11

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:37) I like that solution Anne

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (15:37) @anne this has sense

  Jeff Neuman: (15:38) yes, thanks

  Jeff Neuman: (15:39) right...forgot about that :)

  Jeff Neuman: (15:40) But I think this makes sense

  Jeff Neuman: (15:40) Good work on all of this!

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:40) I don't think it's enough time for HR

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:40) it was a win win nce the "personal" and personality sensabilities were "sorted" jeff

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:41) Good work all

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:41) so we want to rush last minute proposed changes on HR in 20 minute? Very nice.

  Jeff Neuman: (15:41) But Cheryl...what if the ALAC took the Ombudsman report and said...we dont care....we are not changing....what would happen next

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:41) Thanks to Ombuds team!

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:41) better to get my hand up right now then.

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:41) +1 @Thomas, thanks to Sebastien and Ombuds team

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (15:42) Tatiana, we will not rush this, but can do two parts of the discussion

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:42) thanks Thomas

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:42) Niels please mention that the last points in your proposed text were not discussed in the group, thank you.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:43) and that they were proposed few hours before the call

  Jeff Neuman: (15:44) I think this group and the Jurisdiction group are by far the most difficult and challenging issues, so I admire the job you all have done so far

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:45) @Tatiana - Are you saying Niels sent new language for the document we had last discussed?

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:45) I like Juri group better. that group knows how to have fun. Greg is joyful everytime  he chairs the meeting

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:46) Anne, I a talking about the suggestion sent by Niels to the group to which Matt objected

  Jeff Neuman: (15:46) Greg certainly has a lot of patience

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:46) and I did too

  Jeff Neuman: (15:50) I am not sure I have enough information to give any advice

  Jeff Neuman: (15:50) on this

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:50) Agree with Tatiana that time is short on this call and maybe best to have this discussion in one go

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (15:50) Agree with Tatiana and Matt's concerns on the new text for HR.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:51) we have to inform the list about our concerns

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:51) at list the CCWG list

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:51) with the last minute proposals we just don't have enough time to take an informed decision

  Niels ten Oever: (15:51) @Tatiana - There is no new text suggested here

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:51) apart from taking it based on disent opinion

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:52) Niels, you sent a text to the HR list and Jorge sent the suggestion to asking the CCWG to decide

  Niels ten Oever: (15:52) Nopes - I asked what people thought

  Niels ten Oever: (15:53) "Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below."

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:53) and to decide - be it text or not we have to inform the group not about when the opinion was submitted but what we discussed and which concerns we brough and why we didn't hcange the text - may be not in the same length. I for once don't believe the proposed text is any kind of common ground proposal

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:53) and I do not think it's a compromise proposal - as far as I see I am not alone.

  Niels ten Oever: (15:53) That is all I asked for.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:54) Awesome we have supportive voice but we need to give the voice to those who object

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:54) just to explain teh consequences.

  Niels ten Oever: (15:54) I did not make my opinion known whatsoever

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:54) And what is presented as a compromise solution takes us away from the compromise text proposed before

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:54) and agreed upon

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:54) if I may say

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:55) Do if I understand it correctly, a proposal for compromise text was made directly to the CCWG without going to the subgroup?????

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:55) so as I expected I wasn't alone in not supporting it.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:55) Anne am of the same understanding. It's anything but compromise or agreed or common ground text

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:55) @Anne: when I made text proposals in August they were not considered

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:56) Greg - plus million

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:56) we can't overrule the fact that we have to reflect there was no consensus in the group by saying otehrwise at the plenary

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:56) Inded Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:56) and without informing the wider group of *why* we couldn't agree

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:57) The UNGP are an international instrument endorsed by the United Nations. As other declarations mentioned in the FoI, it is not as such a legally binding document, but it was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through a formal resolution. Therefore, locating it under instruments makes sense.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:57) so the group can take the informed decision and not just cheer up let's have Ruggie and more HR.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:57) I support every comment from Greg.

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (15:57) So do I.

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:57) I also wish I could support

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:58) The Subgroup just proposes - it is up to the CCWG to decide

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:58) But it is not something I can support

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:58) I think it would be quite bizarre procedurally to be proposing language to be discussed by the plenary that has not been reviewed by the subgroup.  This would be a terrible precedent for Working Groups.  No one would seek compromise in a Sub Team

  Milton Mueller: (15:58) Awwww

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:58) +1 Anne

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (15:58) Substantive last minute changes to the text are inappropriate.

  Lori Schulman: (15:58) I think that we should take Greg's concerns very seriously

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:58) Ungrounded changes

  Lori Schulman: (15:59) and not agree to anything without further review and explanation

  Tatiana Tropina: (15:59) Lori thank you - this is exactly the point I am trying to make

  Lori Schulman: (16:00) There is a doubt about consensus

  Lori Schulman: (16:00) and agree that perhaps handled by plenary

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (16:00) Yes, Lori

  Farzaneh Badii: (16:00) Bye all

  Wale Bakare: (16:00) Thanks all, bye!

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:00) the Plenary always has considered and resolved issues when drafting teams or subgroups did not come to an agreement

  Lori Schulman: (16:00) ciao

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (16:00) I thought it was a proposal for compromise language in the Considerations document or the FOI.  In that case, it needs to be discussed in the subgroup.

  Lori Schulman: (16:00) I am very crunchy

  Lori Schulman: (16:01) crispy actually

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (16:01) I agree Niels no point in us reconvening on this but discuss now here

  Greg Shatan: (16:01) The subgroup came to an agreement -- just not full consensus.

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (16:01) salty and sweet also

  Tatiana Tropina: (16:01) the way the things are presented are not the compromised proposal

  Lori Schulman: (16:01) suspect that others are too

  Tatiana Tropina: (16:01) this doesn't have to do anything with what we proposed

  David McAuley (RySG): (16:01) Thanks all, good bye

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (16:01) Yes Jorge - but discussed in Subgroup first.  I am very confused at this point about what language change is being debated.  

  Tatiana Tropina: (16:01) thanks all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (16:01) Bye everyone  more on 11th

  Lori Schulman: (16:01) bye

  Collin Kurre: (16:01) Thanks everyone!

  Robin Gross [GNSO NCSG]: (16:02) bye

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:02) bye and thanks all!

  Michael Abejuela (ASO): (16:02) bye all

  Thomas Rickert, Co-Chair: (16:02) Good work all! Bye!

  Andreea Brambilla: (16:02) Thank you!

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (16:02) bye all

  Julf Helsingius: (16:02) Thank you all!

  Krishna Seeburn - Kris: (16:02) bye


  • No labels