Page History
...
Sub-group members: Andreea Brambilla, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Janet Shih Hajek, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Niels ten Oever, Rudi Daniel
Observers and Guests: Beth Bacon, Mark Carvell,
Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry, Nathalie Vergnolle
** If your name is missing from the attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team
3. AOB
Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat):
13 participants at start of call
1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
Niels Ten Oever: No phone only. No apologies received no updates to SOIs. Any updates to the agenda (none).
2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team
Niels ten Oever: Work in progress: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit
Niels Ten Oever: (going through the document from the top). “Which Specific HR conventions or instruments....” - Use GUIDE vs Operationalize at the bottom.
David McAuley: thanks to NTO for a good editing of the document.
Niels Ten Oever: Next part - "Policies and Frameworks" - again GUIDE vs Operationalize. (no comments).
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: sounds good so far
Niels Ten Oever:"Consistent with ICANN's existing..." - Getting into the weeds here
David McAuley (RySG): This section seems fine to me
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: are we saying that all SO s are possibly affected?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Rudi - This is one of the discussions in the drafting team. There are some who think all SOs and ACs are affected and must take into account the HR- FOI. Others seems to say that, for example, this does not affect any GAC procedures at all but I don't know why.
Niels Ten Oever: (no comments). "Consider how the interpretation of this....." (reading).
Kavouss Arasteh: Can we "interpret" this Bylaw? do we have the right to do this?
Anne Aikman-Scalese: good question. Its the obligation of the Board in terms of who is responsible for compliance with the HR Bylaw.
Kavouss Arasteh: There have been changes since last time - uncertain how this affects the GAC and its advice. Paragraph has to be revised - there cannot be interpretation of the bylaw.
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: The GAC will have regard to human rights when formulating its advice but the Board could conceivably reject the advice on grounds that to do so would conflict with the commitment on human rights. The Board would have to come back to the GAC to explain this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was also discussion in the drafting team regarding the use of the word "commitment" in two places in this document. "Commitment" is a term of art in the ByLaws and that word should be changed to either "Core Value to respect" or "obligation to respect" Human Rights. An ICANN "commitment" is something else with a different meaning for the definition of the Board's fiduciary duties.
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: i also agree with Anne's comment...
Niels Ten Oever: KA - noted. But there is value in completing the reading.
Kavouss Arasteh: Option 1 delete first line +1 word of second line, option 2 change Bylaw location. Rest is fine.
David Mcauley: Suggestion is "in order to operationalize etc." I would delete. SOACs have such different remits that they could have 3 different takes on this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see your point David
Niels Ten Oever: So recommendation was to have a CCWG-HR and DM noted that it might not make sense to have 1 for all the SOACs because they are different.
Andreea Brambilla: +1 David, I was interested in some explanation for why both PDPs and a CCWG are proposed for implementation. If it's a trade-off, that should be elaborated here.
Andreea Brambilla: At least that way we are laying out all options (i.e. 'fully considering')
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Mark - I agree with you as to not understanding why the language re GAC says "There is no change". There must be a change for every body in the community that makes policy recommendations.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re: PDP versus CCWG, I think it would be best if Human Rights are considered and included in the ongoing PDPS. In particular, these processes should be integrated in a manner that does not hold up another round - in particular a possible priority round for Community Applications. (these views are my own and not those of the IPC.)
Niels Ten Oever: The last part " the affect if any .." (reading)
Mark Carvell: AC's provide "advice" they do not develop policy they simply advise those who advise policy. The first sentence has no point - the key is the second sentence which applies to all ACs. The GAC has a WG on HRs and we will consider HR when developing advice for the Board.
David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mark and agree second sentence is key point
Niels Ten Oever: So MK remove the first sentece? (correct) and applies to all AC's.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with MK the GAC will consider HRs. Agree that it applies to all ACs because but GAC advice has special status.
Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with MK on first sentence.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it's fine to delete first sentence but shouldn't we be saying that GAC will take into account the FOI- HR when rendering public policy advice to the Board - as is incumbent on the GNSO?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: the ALAC is different we influence SO's where the policy is being developed and as such more along the lines of what DM was proposing where SO's are individual. So no need for special HR rules for ALAC.
David McAuley (RySG): I actually think the second sentence is more accurate than that @Anne, i.e. that the Bd will take FoI into account as it considers GAC advice.
David McAuley (RySG): Thanks CLO, helpful.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ David - yes but that is accurate as to ALL SOs and ACs and other advisors, not just the GAC.
Niels Ten Oever: Can we keep working on the document so we can have a document to review in Copenhagen.
Kavouss Arasteh: Agree delete first sentence of the last part. Also the first line of the previous part.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with the deletion of 1st sentence
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Also agree to delete first sentence in last part. Do not understand why we cannot state that the GAC will consider HR's in defining its advice. Also wrt to balancing of core values - we seem to be unwilling to talk about the balancing between the human rights - the rights of authors must be balanced with privacy and free expressions on a case by case basis. This balancing should be discussed in Copenhagen.
David McAuley (RySG): Good points Anne but I think we are avoiding specific examples for a reason - balancing will be done in discrete circumstances. I personally think this doc is not for granular HR discussion
Kavouss Arasteh: responding to AAS - cross referencing, given HR in in the Bylaws, is therefore covered by the fact that the GAC advice must be consistent with the ICANN Bylaws - if we mention the GAC vs the HR then we have to also add it to gNSO and ccNSO.
Mark Carvell: Support KA point. Appreciate ASS raising this point and should be discussed in the GAC.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ DAvid - We are avoiding the elephant in the room if we do not discuss balancing among Human Rights. This is true in part because the work of the CCWP has not to date included any literature on the rights of authors as far as I know. Though it was agreed to incorporate this in Dublin. In truth, there is no free expression without protecting the rights of authors and artists to the integrity of their work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): cultural DNA in many cases yes Mark
Niels Ten Oever: Adjourning the call.
Decisions:
- General agreement to delete the first sentence of the last section.
Action Items:
Everyone should keep working on the document.
Action items
- Everyone should keep working on the document.
Documents submitted to the
Chat from AC Room
Brenda Brewer: (2/14/2017 12:16) Good day all and welcome to Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #20 on 14 February 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:43) Hi Brenda,Hi everybody
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:58) Hello all
David McAuley (RySG): (12:59) I am 4154
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:00) all please remember to buckle your seat belts - seriously please mute you mics if not speaking
David McAuley (RySG): (13:03) thanks to Niels I believe for a cleaner document
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: (13:11) sounds good so far
David McAuley (RySG): (13:14) This section seems fine to me
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: (13:15) are we saying that all SO s are possibly affected?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:15) Kavous hand up
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:18) @ Rudi - This is one of the discussions in the drafting team. There are some who think all SOs and ACs are affected and must take into account the HR- FOI. Others seems to say that, for example, this does not affect any GAC procedures at all but I don't know why.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:20) thx Anne
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:22) Add "Framework of" in front of "interpretation" should help with the understanding
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (13:24) The GAC will have regard to human rights when formulating its advice but the Board could conceivably reject the advice on grounds that to do so would conflict with the commitment on human rights. The Board would have to come back to the GAC to explain this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:24) There was also discussion in the drafting team regarding the use of the word "commitment" in two places in this document. "Commitment" is a term of art in the ByLaws and that word should be changed to either "Core Value to respect" or "obligation to respect" Human Rights. An ICANN "commitment" is something else with a different meaning for the definition of the Board's fiduciary duties.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:26) good point Anne, makes sense
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:28) Time check: 30 minutes left in the call
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: (13:29) i also agree with Anne's comment...
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (13:29) Yes agree with "obligation to respect" rather than "commitment."
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:30) It seems that to some degree, we are avoiding in the language the reality that the Community and the Board will not only have to balance all the ICANN Core Values, but will necessarily also have to balance certain Human Rights against each other, for example, the right of privacy as against the rights of authors to the integrity of their creative material and right of attribution as expressed in the Universal Declaration.
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (13:31) I do not understand the first sentence "There is no change....."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:32) I see your point David
Andreea Brambilla: (13:32) +1 David, I was interested in some explanation for why both PDPs and a CCWG are proposed for implementation. If it's a trade-off, that should be elaborated here.
Andreea Brambilla: (13:33) At least that way we are laying out all options (i.e. 'fully considering')
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:33) @Mark - I agree with you as to not understanding why the language re GAC says "There is no change". There must be a change for every body in the community that makes policy recommendations.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:33) a bit harderr to hear Kavouss now
David McAuley (RySG): (13:33) perhaps my system - just fixed volume and it is better
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:35) Re: PDP versus CCWG, I think it would be best if Human Rights are considered and included in the ongoing PDPS. In particular, these processes should be integrated in a manner that does not hold up another round - in particular a possible priority round for Community Applications. (these views are my own and not those of the IPC.)
David McAuley (RySG): (13:35) i fixed that - ok and I think I caught your point Kavouss espiet temp dip in audio on my end
David McAuley (RySG): (13:36) meant 'despite' a dip in audio
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:36) AGree with that Niels
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:37) yup
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: (13:37) i.now understand Kavouss...+1
Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:37) apologies... thought this was cancelled... Hello everyone, just got a notification I was missing it :-)
David McAuley (RySG): (13:39) good point @Mark and agree second sentence is key point
Niels ten Oever: (13:41) Cheryl, I'd be very curious to hear what you think about this
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (13:43) Sorry - on GAC calls the hand automatically and magically lowers when you speak.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:43) Correction to staff notes - Did not say that the FOI- HR will not apply to all ACs. In fact I said the opposite.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:44) time check: 15 minutes left in the call
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:44) I think it's fine to delete first sentence but shouldn't we be saying that GAC will take into account the FOI- HR when rendering public policy advice to the Board - as is incumbent on the GNSO?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:45) AAS- notes corrected
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:46) @ Bernard. THank you for the correction.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:46) I actually think the second sentence is more accurate than that @Anne, i.e. that the Bd will take FoI into account as it considers GAC advice.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:47) Thanks CLO, helpful.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:47) @ David - yes but that is accurate as to ALL SOs and ACs and other advisors, not just the GAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:47) exactly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:49) Our mandate specifically states we "act in the best interests of Internet end users and individual Domain Name Registrants
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:50) agree with the deletion of 1st sentence
David McAuley (RySG): (13:52) Good points Anne but I think we are avoiding specific examples for a reason - balancing will be done in discrete circumstances
David McAuley (RySG): (13:53) I personally think this doc is not for granul;ar HR discussion
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (13:55) My hand is to reply to Ann as well.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:56) @ DAvid - We are avoiding the elephant in the room if we do not discuss balancing among Human Rights. This is true in part because the work of the CCWP has not to date included any literature on the rights of authors as far as I know. Though it was agreed to incorporate this in Dublin. In truth, there is no free expression without protecting the rights of authors and artists to the integrity of their work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:57) cultural DNA in many cases yes Mark
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:57) @ Bernard - it is not ASS - it's AAS or AEAS
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:57) bye for now everyone.... thanks
David McAuley (RySG): (13:57) Look forward to discussing in Copenhagen
David McAuley (RySG): (13:57) Thanks Niels, staff, and all, good bye
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:57) Thank you Mark. And Thank you Niels
Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:57) Bye all
Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: (13:57) Neils, current doc is a huge improvement ..great.thx all.
Karen Mulberry: (13:57) Thanks you all
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:57) If we mention any thing about GAGM, we must mention similar text for GNSO and CCNSO
Mary Uduma: (13:58) Bye
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:58) bye all
