Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <796894064.3099.1711717806342@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_3098_1544845201.1711717806341" ------=_Part_3098_1544845201.1711717806341 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Sub-group members: Alan Greenberg, Andreea Brambi= lla, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Gre= g Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Wayne, Janet Shih Hajek, John Laprise, Kavo= uss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Tatiana Tropin= a (16)
Observers and guests: Beth Bacon, Irene Borissova= (2)
Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard= Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry (5)
Apologies: Jorge Cancio, Rudi Daniel, Anne A= ikman-Scalese
** If your name is missing from the attendance or apology, please se= nd note to acct-staff@ican= n.org **
1. Administrivia - Roll call= , absentees, SoIs, etc
2. Discussion of work-in-progress consid= erations document by drafting team
3. AOB
Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat) [
18 Participants at start of call.
1. Administrivia
Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
Niels ten Oever - No audio only. No= changes. Mark Carvel and Jorge Cancio have input from the UN group on Busi= ness and Human Rights and I would ask if ok for them to present (no objecti= ons). will invite them to one of our future calls to present.
Tatiana Tropina: what exactly would be th= e benefit of this? Are they aware what we are doing? Are they familiar with= ICANN?
Tatiana Tropina: or are the Ruggie salesp= ersons? Sorry for being harsh
2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by&nbs= p;drafting team
(Review of the FOI document - Greg Shatan presenting 3 options)
https://d= ocs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit=
avri doria: Strong support for proposal 2=
Tatiana Tropina: I don't know if "I don't= know whether alleged by some" is an appropriate text for such a document= p>
Tatiana Tropina: I think proposal 1 and 2= can be combined to some extent but we have to be clear that the group hasn= 't reach an agreement whether to recommend Ruggie
Mathew Shears - Want to reinforce point m= ade my GS - have to be careful how this is written. Options should be place= d above the statement.
Niels ten Oever - MS could you expand on = your views of the 3 options.
Mathew Shears- Really uncertain ADOPTION = is the right word. Have to be careful in these options.
Tatiana Tropina: No but to make the secon= d para in the FoI we have to really consider
Tatiana Tropina: because I wonder where t= his consideration that they are useful is coming from? Have we agreed on th= at?
David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Matthew, fai= r points
Tatiana Tropina: I mean have we really co= nsidered? And this actually goes together with what Matt is saying
Kavouss Arasteh - COULD be used as a guid= e is correct - this has been discussed over and over - but I do not agree w= ith ADOPTION. We should not keep going over things that are done.
matthew shears: these 3 proposal are frau= ght with difficulties
matthew shears: yes, we have been here be= fore ...
avri doria: "could be used as a guide" wo= rks for me. but i am more than happy to explore a multitude of wordings.
Tatiana Tropina: I strongly disagree
Erich Schweighofer: Kavous Arasteh is rig= ht - Ruggie is for commercial companies.
Tatiana Tropina - three people from the d= rafting team were not on the call to raise the issues. Disagree with KA, no= t all members of the drafting team were present which has caused issues.
avri doria: no it is for companies. =
Greg Shatan: People from different stakeh= older groups, I may add.
avri doria: perhaps more pointed to the c= ommercial affairs. and we cannot deny that ICANN is involved in comme= rce. it just does it 'not for profits=E2=80=99. but commerce it= is.
Erich Schweighofer: No public purpose ...= ?
Kavouss Arasteh - Tatiana, pls do not imp= ose your views
avri doria: ... is invovled in in commerc= e ...public purpose is the reason. commerce is the method.
Tatiana Tropina - ICANN can in the future= agree to follow the Ruggie principles - but our group has not reached agre= ement on this. But the group has to have the discussion.
Greg Shatan - Agree in large part with TT=
- we have not reached agreement. Have we completed the discussion - probab=
ly not - but we cannot buy the
Ruggies principles wholesale - maybe some subsets - but some parts are cert=
ainly unapplicable and possibly against ICANN's mission and this goes beyon=
d the scope of this group.
Niels ten Oever: It's not like we never d= iscuss this.
Tatiana Tropina: we have to have at least=
the discussion on the option 1 or 2 we never had a discussion whether we h=
ave this conclusion or not
exactly so I don't agree with having a sentence just because it sounds nice=
.
matthew Shears: I would argue given the d=
ifferences of opinion and interpretation it is to early to make a commitmen=
t of sorts to Ruggie - it may be that
this is addressed in the future as we have also discussed in the past
Tatiana Tropina - I agree that we can say=
thay ICANN org or community can decide for themselves what to do with Rugg=
ie we have to be crystal
clear that this group agreed or disagreed upon. I am not against Ruggie if =
ICANN wil decide to commit. Fine.
Avri Doria: well they have to be guided b= y the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guidel= ine, somethog to get a clue from.
Kavouss Arasteh - If some people did not = attend, it may be wrong that that opposed to what has been agreed at the me= eting in which several people attending
avri doria: well they have to be guided b= y the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guidel= ine, something to get a clue from.[they do not have be guided by ...
Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the= sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary
David McAuley: I would add my voice to sa= ying we have to be very careful how we refer to the Ruggie principles. thes= e are simply guidelines as stated in the Bylaws.
Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the=
sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary fine. Why n=
ot. But let's not confuse anyone with what
we agreed upon and what we considered
Kavouss Arasteh - Secretatriat , pls also= include my comments like other comments
avri doria: /9on the notes, there was a n= ot missing in my first sentence)
Greg Shatan: And that's why significant p=
oints should not be decided at a single meeting. Otherwise, people could sc=
hedule meetings at a time
when people are engaged in other ICANN-related meetings and unable to atten=
d, and use that to jam minority positions through.
Tatiana Tropina: David, agree! A very goo= d point. ICANN can consider Ruggie but we certainly can't decide for them a= nd we haven't agreed what is useful
avri doria: agree not binding.
Kavouss Arasteh - If people do not attend=
a meeting where things are decided you cannot come up after to change thin=
gs. So do not
agree with TT. Suggest use COULD BE USED WHERE APPLICABLE. We are not charg=
ed with any ADOPTION.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought that = we worked under that principal Greg
Tatiana Tropina: They have some strong la= nguage
Greg Shatan: Sorry for the duplication, d= idn't even know that could happen!
matthew shears: there is nothing to stop = discussion of ruggie occuring in the future
Tatiana Tropina: and any language which i= s vague can still be used to go outside the limits
Tatiana Tropina: Matt +1
avri doria: ( greg been happenin to me to= o - did not understand how it happened )
Tatiana Tropina: it is appropriate when p= eople didn't raise any issues we are raising them now
avri doria: decsions are not made in one = meeting, i thought
David McAuley (RySG): disagree respectful= ly w/Kavouss - if a person misses one meeting they should still be able to = be heard
Tatiana Tropina: Especially if the person= was trying her best to draft and raise issues
John Laprise: Strongly disagree with Kavo= us. We want a strong output document. Period.
Tatiana Tropina: We can't rush compromisi= ng the quality
John Laprise: agreed Tatiana. Kavous: we'= re not in the UN we're volunteers working on Internet governance policy.
avri doria: i thought we were working tow= ard consensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything i= s decided. and that is by the plenary not us.
matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly we ta= ke that as rule for my WT and all other groups in ICANN I work with Avri
Tatiana Tropina: if we are to go for the = option 2, we have to consider it not as a sentence but content wise
Greg Shatan: Agree with Avri & Cheryl= . And with Niels position on where we are and the two readings rule.<= /p>
matthew shears: yes
Niels ten Oever: As TT and MS have said t= here may be a combination of options 1 and 2 which could work.
matthew shears: yes
Tatiana Tropina: only if we consider opti= on 2 properly
Kavouss Arasteh - Avri, if you want to ma=
ke a principle of "i thought we were working toward consensus as much as po=
ssible and
nothing is decided until everything is decided. and that is by the pl=
enary not us.- pls submit your views to CCWG Plenary
avri doria: Kavouss, not me. I thou= ght that was the modality we worked by.
Kavouss Arasteh - Not at all
avri doria: and ICAN Consensus not Full C= onsensus
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup
Kavouss Arasteh - who agreed with that mo= dality - is it in the charter?
avri doria: of WS2?
avri doria: i thought so.
Greg Shatan: I cannot agree with general = support for the Ruggie Principles.
matthew shears: proposal 1a and 2 wil nee= d some serious massaging and would need to be future oriented - the first p= ara of proposal 1 stands as a separate statement of fact
David McAuley (RySG): Well put Greg that = RP is not a banned book and not THE guide
Tatiana Tropina: If we adopt Option 2 we = have to mean it and we have to be very clear on what we are agreeing to - n= eed to discuss properly - will support any consensus.
matthew shears: its a marriage that will = need a lot of work
avri doria: I think Tatiana concern is pr= emature
Niels ten Oever: Might also be interested= to hear the UN WG about this
Kavous Arasteh - Cannot say Ruggie Princi= ples are completely inapplicable. this has been discussed.
Tatiana Tropina: it was discussed and we = never agreed it was applicable
Tatiana Tropina: if we agree - fine. I am= fine. I am against the sentence without a proper consideration.
Greg Shatan: The Ruggie Principles are mo= st certainly not "applicable law."
Tatiana Tropina: no, they are not applica= ble law
David McAuley (RySG): +1 Greg and Tatiana=
Niels ten Oever: No, they are a soft-law = instrument.
avri doria: my point was that is is prema=
ture to worry about the details of Ruggie. It is a guide for those do=
ing commerce. anyone using it will
have to take into account all thr restraints of the bylaws and not use it i=
nappropriately. to do that up front seems premature.
Tatiana Tropina: I think it is as prematu=
re as recommend to include the sentence only because we like how it is writ=
ten proposal two hasn't got
enough consideration it=E2=80=99s still a proposal. And we for now just con=
sider it as a sentence, a text.
Greg Shatan: First ws have to discuss whe= ther it could be useful.
Tatiana Tropina: Yes. If we write this we= have to discuss this. yes exactly - not all are useful, right? why are we = writing they are all useful?
Kavouss Arasteh - Use Could, would = etc. Saying not applicable is not good - this has been discussed many times= .
Tatiana Tropina: I think Kavouss is very = close to the truth - under sertain circumstances if so decided by ICANN org= , board or community
Niels ten Oever: @Kavouss - added to the = GoogleDOC
Tatiana Tropina: depending on the case
Greg Shatan - We cannot recommend the Rug=
gie Principles wholesale - some may be useful. This is a decision for anoth=
er time - which could be
useful or appropriate under what circumstances. Lets not go through them on=
e by one.
matthew shears: we are interpreting and i=
mplementing the bylaw. as to whether it is useful for interpreting we=
have discussed and that we could
not agree. there is nothing to prevent them being revisited in the fu=
ture and we could address them in that context
Tatiana Tropina: Greg what if we leave th= e decision whether to use them as a guidance to those who want to use? ICAN= N org etc
matthew shears: we are not ruling them ou= t
Tatiana Tropina: with careful considerati= on I also don't think so - it's not our task. But we have to be clear that = it's up to them to decide and that we couldn't agree
matthew shears: + 1 Greg
Niels Ten Oever - GS proposal sounded lik= e a good compromise - could you put this in the Google Doc?
Kavouss Arasteh - Tend to agree with last=
statement of GS - Certain principles could be used for guidance under cert=
ain circumstances. This would
work and leave it at that.
Tatiana Tropina: +1 greg
avri doria: except for the 'under any cir= cumstance' goes too far let the future decide what fits the bylaws not us= p>
Tatiana Tropina: we didn't suggest to say= it wasn't applciable. we suggested to say we couldn't recomment and that's= not up to us to decide
David McAuley (RySG): agree with Greg - R=
P is not to be "recommended" but can/may be a guide in appropriate circumst=
ances that might
help ICANN discern what it ought to do under bylaw constraints
Tatiana Tropina: other than that. agree w= ith Greg David, and it should be their decision, not ours - the applicabili= ty
Avri Doria: yes Tatiana
Matthew Shears: agree
David McAuley (RySG): exactly - we cannot= peer into the future for ICANN, thay must abide by bylaw in the day
Niels ten Oever: Positive is nice
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the proposed te= xt when captured then of course needs to go to the list for wider review an= d then discuss in our next meeting
Tatiana Tropina: I am not against I am ju=
st against blank decisions and recommendations. If ICANN decides to use Rug=
gie I would be only welcoming
this. Well, if they decide with careful consideration :-)
avri doria: whereas the guidelines should= still guide
Niels ten Oever - Sounds like a possible =
compromise. Can we move to other parts of the text in these last few minute=
s of the call. Lets share this language
and have two readings of it to confirm consensus.
David McAuley (RySG): agree w/CLO
Tatiana Tropina: agree with Cheryl, too= p>
Markus Kummer: there is room for some cre= ative drafting!
Tatiana Tropina: this is not finished and=
we have to redraft and re-discuss to make everyone happy - Markus, there i=
s always the room... last week it was
Hilton breakfast room ;-) for three of us
Tatiana Tropina - for the policy framewor=
k part - change operationalize to PUT IN PRACTICE etc. (review of document)=
. Each SOAC should take this
into consideration individually. Balancing important.
David McAuley (RySG): I think the word "c= ommitment" (last word penultimate sentence) ought to be "core value"
Niels ten Oever - please look at th=
e document and comment on the list. I will propose to present where we are =
in Copenhagen at the plenary tomorrow
as we will not have consensus by then.
Kavouss Arasteh - What is TT proposing?= p>
Niels ten Oever - a work in process but w= e are progressing. Lets hope we can continue to do this going forward. Talk= next week. Adjourned.
Decisions =E2=80=93 none
Documents
Brenda Brewer: (2/21/2017 12:29) = Good day all and welcome to Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #21 on 21 Februar= y 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Brenda Brewer: (12:36) HR Po= licy & Process google doc link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u= =3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYw= N4AItZjkY_edit&d=3DDwICaQ&c=3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xc= l4I5cM&r=3DkbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=3DFqQKVBYW= 7vM5KJg6JaDgy68awwryyXQfyZvHvK5P8kk&s=3DwoVQlk-6063cljddboo860tHkcIltWV= EjsyXpmwdUMw&e=3D
Herb Waye Ombuds: (12:56) Hi= folks
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (12:57) Hello all
Markus Kummer: (12:57) Hi ev= eryone
Tatiana Tropina: (12:58) Hi = all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:00) Please mute if not speaking
David McAuley (RySG): (13:00= ) 4154 is me
Brenda Brewer: (13:01) Thank= you, David!
Tatiana Tropina: (13:02) Ann= e brought her apoligies as well
Tatiana Tropina: (13:03) wha= t exactly would be the benefit of this? Are they aware what we are doing? A= re they familiar with ICANN?
David McAuley (RySG): (13:04= ) sorry - had connection issue, missed a bit but in now
Tatiana Tropina: (13:04) or = are the Ruggie salespersons? Sorry for being harsh
Tatiana Tropina: (13:04) wel= l we are open to anyone so I don't mind
avri doria: (13:04) are wee = doing a Ruggie slam again?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:05) but= they are joining at the very end so I hope they would understand that we h= ad discussions
David McAuley (RySG): (13:05= ) when will that be, do we know
Greg Shatan: (13:05) I have = just joined the call.
avri doria: (13:12) Strong s= upport for proposal 2
Tatiana Tropina: (13:13) I d= on't know if "I don't know whether alleged by some" is an appropriate text = for such a document
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:13) the= re is no sound
Tatiana Tropina: (13:14) I t= hink proposal 1 and 2 can be combined to some extent but we have to be clea= r that the group hasn't reach an agreement whether to recommend Ruggie
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:15) Bre= nda
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:15) I a= m disconnected
Brenda Brewer: (13:15) calli= ng you back, Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) I&n= bsp; do not agree with the changes
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) I A= M DISCONNECTED
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) Hel= lo Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:17)&nbs= p; I am disconnected
Brenda Brewer: (13:17) your = phone should be ringing, Kavouss. Thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:17) why= I was disconnected pls
Brenda Brewer: (13:18) Somet= imes this happens on Adobe Connect. I can assure you it was pure= ly accidental.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:19) But= it has happened to me always
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) No = but to make the second para in the FoI we have to really consider
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) bec= ause I wonder where this consideration that they are useful is coming from?= Have we agreed on that?
David McAuley (RySG): (13:19= ) Thanks Matthew, fair points
Tatiana Tropina: (13:20) I m= ean have we really considered? And this actually goes together with what Ma= tt is saying
matthew shears: (13:20) thes= e 3 proposal are fraught with difficulties
matthew shears: (13:21) yes,= we have been here before ...
avri doria: (13:21) "could b= e used as a guide" works for me. but i am more than happy to explore a mult= itude of wordings.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) I s= trognly disagree
Erich Schweighofer: (13:21) = Kavous Arasteh is right - Ruggie is for commercial companies.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) thr= ee people from the drafting team were not on the call to raise the issues= span>
avri doria: (13:22) no it is= for companies.
Greg Shatan: (13:22) People = from different stakeholder groups, I may add.
avri doria: (13:22) perhaps = more pointed to the commercial affairs. and we cannot deny that = ICANN is inbovled in commerce. it just does it 'not for profit's= tle. but commerce it is.
Erich Schweighofer: (13:23) = No public purpose ...?
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:23) Tat= iana, pls do not impose your views
avri doria: (13:23) ... is i= nvovled in in commerce ...
avri doria: (13:23) public p= urpose is the reason. commerce is the method.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) cou= ld be useful
Niels ten Oever: (13:24) It'= s not like we never discuss this.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) we = have to have at least the discussion
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) on = the option 1 or 2 we never had a discussion whether we have this conclusion= or not exactly
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) so = I don't agree with having a sentense just because it sounds nice.
matthew shears: (13:26) I wo= uld argue given the differences of opinion and interpretation it is to earl= y to make a commitment of sorts to Ruggie - it may be that this is addresse= d in the future as we have also discussed in the past
Tatiana Tropina: (13:26) I a= gree that we can say thay ICANN org or community can decide for themselves<= /span>
Tatiana Tropina: (13:26) wha= t to do with Ruggie
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) we = have to be crystal clear twhat this group agreed or disagreed upon. I am no= t against Ruggie if ICANN wil decide to commit. Fine.
avri doria: (13:27) well the= y have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is= no binding, just a guideline, somethog to get a clue from.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:27) If = some people did not attend, it may be wrong that that opposed to what has b= een agreed at the meeting in which several people attending
avri doria: (13:27) well the= y have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is= no binding, just a guideline, somethog to get a clue from.[they do not hav= e be guided by ...
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) Avr= i, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this = necessary
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) fin= e. Why not. But let's not confuse anyone with what we agreed upon and what = we considered
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:28) Sec= retatriat , pls also include my comments like other comments
avri doria: (13:28) /9on the= notes, there was a not missing in my first sentence)
Greg Shatan: (13:28) And tha= t's why significant points should not be decided at a single meeting.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:29) Trying folks
Greg Shatan: (13:29) Otherwi= se, people could schedule meetings at a time when people are engaged in oth= er ICANN-related meetings and unable to attend, and use that to jam minorit= y positions through.
Greg Shatan: (13:29) Otherwi= se, people could schedule meetings at a time when people are engaged in oth= er ICANN-related meetings and unable to attend, and use that to jam minorit= y positions through.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:29) Dav= id, agree! A very good point. ICANN can cosider Ruggie but we certainly can= 't decide for them and we haven't agreed what is useful
avri doria: (13:29) agree no= t binding.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:30) I thought that we worked under that principal Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) The= y have some strong language
Greg Shatan: (13:30) Sorry f= or the duplication, didn't even know that could happen!
matthew shears: (13:30) ther= e is nothing to stop discussion of ruggie occuring in the future
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) and= any language which is vague can still be used to go outside the limits
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) Mat= t +1
avri doria: (13:30) ( greg b= een happenin to me too - did not understand how it happened )
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) it = is appropriate when people didn't raise any issues
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) we = are raising them now
avri doria: (13:31) decsions= are not made in one meeting, i thought
David McAuley (RySG): (13:31= ) disagree respectfully w/Kavouss - if a person misses one meeting they sho= uld still be able to be heard
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) Esp= ecially if the person was trying her best to draft and raise issues<= /p>
John Laprise: (13:31) Strong= ly disagree with Kavous. We want a strong output document. Period.= p>
Tatiana Tropina: (13:32) We = can't rush compromising the quality
John Laprise: (13:32) agreed= Tatiana
John Laprise: (13:32) Kavous= : we're not in the UN we're volunteers working on Internet governance polic= y.
avri doria: (13:32) i though= t we were working toward consensus as much as possible and nothing is decid= ed until everything is decided. and that is by the plenary not u= s.
matthew shears: (13:32) + 1 = Tatiana
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:32) certainly we take that as rule for my WT and all other groups in ICAN= N I work with Avri
Tatiana Tropina: (13:33) if = we are to go for the option 2, we have to consider it not as a sentense but= content wise
Greg Shatan: (13:33) Agree w= ith Avri & Cheryl. And with Niels position on where we are a= nd the two readings rule.
matthew shears: (13:33) yes<= /span>
Tatiana Tropina: (13:34) onl= y if we consider option 2 properly
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:34) Avr= i, if you want to make a principle of "i thought we were working toward con= sensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything is decid= ed. and that is by the plenary not us.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) pls= submit your views to CCWG Plenary
avri doria: (13:35) Kavouss,= not me. I thought that was the modlaity we worked by.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) Not= at all
avri doria: (13:35) ... moda= lity ...
avri doria: (13:35) and ICAN= Consensus not Full Consensus
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:35) yup
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) who= agreed with that modality
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:36) is = it in the charter?
avri doria: (13:36) of WS2?<= /span>
avri doria: (13:36) i though= t so.
matthew shears: (13:37) prop= osal 1a and 2 wil need some serious massaging and would need to be future o= reinted - the first para of proposal 1 stands as a separate statement of fa= ct
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:37) Timing note 22 minutes left in call
David McAuley (RySG): (13:37= ) Well put Greg that RP is not a banned book and not THE guide
matthew shears: (13:38) its = a marriage that will need a lot of work
avri doria: (13:39) I think = Tatiana concern is premature
Niels ten Oever: (13:39) Mig= ht also be interested to hear the UN WG about this
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:39) tHA= T IS NOT TRUE
Tatiana Tropina: (13:39) wri= ting a sentence that we have not agreed upon in the FoI is premature=
Brenda Brewer: (13:40) I can= hear Kavouss
David McAuley (RySG): (13:40= ) I can hear Kavouss
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:40) yes as can I
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) it = was discussed and we never agreed it was applicable
avri doria: (13:41) but can'= t hear me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:41) didn't here you Avri
David McAuley (RySG): (13:41= ) i did not hear you Avri
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) if = we agree - fine. I am fine. I am against the sentence without a proper cons= ideration.
Greg Shatan: (13:41) The Rug= gie Principles are most certainly not "applicable law."
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) no,= they are not applicable law
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42= ) +1 Greg and Tatiana
Niels ten Oever: (13:42) No,= they are a soft-law instrument
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42= ) no
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:42) no audio
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42= ) cant hear
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:42) not hearing
avri doria: (13:42) my point= was that is is premature to worry about the details of Ruggie. = It is a guide for those doing commerce. anyone using it will hav= e to take into account all thr restraints of the bylaws and not use it inap= pporpitely. to do that up front seems premature.
John Laprise: (13:42) not he= aring avri
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:42) from Avri
Greg Shatan: (13:42) Silence= .
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:42) I d= o not hear Avri
avri doria: (13:43) i will r= eboot be be back. but i worte what i wanted to say
Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) I t= hink it is as premature as recommend to include the sentense only because w= e like how it is written
Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) pro= posal two hasn't got enough consideration
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) it'= s still a proposal. And we for now just consider it as a sentense, a text.<= /span>
Greg Shatan: (13:44) First w= s have to discuss whether it could be useful.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) Yes= . If we write this we have to discuss this.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) yes= exactly - not all are useful, right?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) why= are we writing they are all useful?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) the= re are two hands up
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) I t= hink Kavouss is very close to the truth
Tatiana Tropina: (13:46) und= er sertain circumstances if so decided by ICANN org, board or community
Niels ten Oever: (13:46) @Ka= vouss - added to the GoogleDOC
Tatiana Tropina: (13:46) dep= ending on the case
matthew shears: (13:47) we a= re intreting and implemetning the bylaw. ias to whether it is us= eful for interpreting we have discussed and that we could not ag= ree. ithere is npothing to preent them being revisited in the fu= ture and we could address them in that context
Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) Gre= g what if we leave the desicion whether to use them as a guidance to those = who want to use?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) ICA= NN org etc
matthew shears: (13:48) we a= re not ruling them out
Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) wit= h careful consideration
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) I a= lso don't think so - it's not our task. But we have to be clear that it's u= p to them to decide and that we couldn't agree
matthew shears: (13:49) + 1 = Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) +1 = greg
avri doria: (13:49) except f= or the 'under any circumstance' goes too far
avri doria: (13:49) let the = future decide what fits the bylaws not us
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) we = didn't suggest to say it wasn't applciable. we suggested to say we couldn't= recomment and that's not up to us to decide
David McAuley (RySG): (13:49= ) agree with Greg - RP is not to be "recommended" but can/may be a guide in= appropriate circumstances that might help ICANN discern what it ought to d= o under bylaw constraints
Tatiana Tropina: (13:50) oth= er than that. agree with Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:50) Dav= id, and it should be their decision, not ours - the applicability
avri doria: (13:50) yes Tati= ana
matthew shears: (13:50) agre= e
David McAuley (RySG): (13:50= ) exactly - we cannot peer into the future for ICANN, thay must abide by by= law in the day
Niels ten Oever: (13:51) Pos= itive is nice
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:51) the proposed text when captured then of course needs to go to the lis= t for wider review and then discuss in our next meeting
Tatiana Tropina: (13:51) I a= m not against I am just against blanck decisions and recommendations. If IC= ANN decides to use Ruggie I would be only welcoming this. Well, if they dec= ide with careful consideration :-)
avri doria: (13:51) wherreas= the guidelines should still guide
David McAuley (RySG): (13:51= ) agree w/CLO
Tatiana Tropina: (13:51) agr= ee with Cheryl, too
Markus Kummer: (13:52) there= is room for some creative drafting!
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) thi= s is not finished and we have to redraft and rediscuss to make everyone hap= py
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) Mar= kus, there is always the room... last week it was Hilton breakfast room ;-)=
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) for= three of us
Greg Shatan: (13:52) Tatiana= should do this one.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:54= ) I think the word "commitment" (last word penultimate sentence) ought to b= e "core value"
David McAuley (RySG): (13:55= ) Thanks tatiana - was clear
David McAuley (RySG): (13:55= ) Tatiana, that is
Bernard Turcotte Staff Suppo= rt: (13:55) time check 5 minutes mark
Tatiana Tropina: (13:55) yes= core value :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:55) agree David
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) Tha= nks David - changed.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) I d= unno how we missed this, we tried to avoid this language
David McAuley (RySG): (13:56= ) Thank you Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) app= arently there is always a room for improvement :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) we = can present everyting, I agree
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) (es= pecially because I arrive on 11th and will attend remotely :)))
matthew shears: (13:56) alwa= ys a work in progress....
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) Mat= t, once we will be there.....
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) fut= ure is bright.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) != span>
matthew shears: (13:57) we w= ill celebrate
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) yes= , with singing the songs
Markus Kummer: (13:57) work = in progress ain' bad...
Niels ten Oever: (13:57) wor= king together is already celebrating ;)
David McAuley (RySG): (13:58= ) Cake for everyone
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) Cak= e! Cake! I want free cakes for the whole meeting :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) C i= s for Cake, that's good enough for me :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (1= 3:58) thanks everyone... talk again at Plenary... bye for now...
matthew shears: (13:58) than= ks all!
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:58) Tat= iana, you may not need any cake at all
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) tha= nks all - looking forward to continue work!
Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:58) ci= ao
Markus Kummer: (13:58) bye a= ll!
David McAuley (RySG): (13:58= ) Thank you drafting team, Niels, staff and all
Tatiana Tropina: (13:59) bye=