Sub-group Members:  Avri Doria, David Einhorn, David McAuley, Ellen Blackler, Gonzalo Navarro, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Marilia Maciel, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Rudi Daniel, Tatiana Tropina   (14)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Trang Nguyen

Apologies:  Seun Ojedeji, Martin Boyle

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**




These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.


There appears to be consensus position that ICANN should respect human rights. Most of the comments reflect concern on whether we should be able addressing this as a WS1 issue. Concerns also raised regarding mission: it may broaden ICANN's mission. Public comments take us through path of not being able to establish language in Bylaws but rather commit us to work as part of WS2. 


- Is there consensus that we should not have language for WS1? That is not what I am reading. 

--> We have consensus on addressing human rights. My reading is that while most of comments support having language included into bylaws as part of WS1, contributors raise concern that it may lead to consequences we should first analyze. It is unclear whether it should be a Bylaw change or if it is a commitment to further work at later stage. 

- We have consensus on commitment. Next steps would be for us to provide framework. 

We should provide a rationale and continue our work to frame discussion. We should first go through comments and if this group agrees to add language in Bylaws - we will move forward. 

- We need to take into account comments and understand where points of divergence. We need to come up with proposed language. 

- Let's aim for drafting Bylaw language instead of high level commitment after careful analysis of comments. Agreement on wording needed. 

--> Many comments did not agree on cherry picking rights but also comments that we should refer to UN declaration of rights. 

- We need to be focusing on public comment. 

- We should be mindful of implementation. 


- Review public comments and draft assessment paper 

Volunteers: Ellen Blackler - Leon Sanchez - Marilia Maciel - Matthew Shears - David McAuley - Greg Shatan - Niels Ten Oever - Tatiana Tropina

  • Assessment should be completed by Oct 7 
  • Discuss on call Oct 8
  • Follow discussions online Oct 9-11
  • Deliver Oct 12

Use J. Zuck template for analysis.

Volunteers should go through all 26 comments. 

Additional call to be scheduled for Oct 6 

- Suggestion to classify comments ourselves

- Suggestion to color code

Discussion of option 2 "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights. 

- There is difference between respect and protect. 

- Will must be replaced with shall. 

--> Lawyers will determine appropriate language.

- History around shall is being replaced. Recognize international fundamental rights.

- Fundamental is too narrow. General would cover all. 

- Fundamental rights is a separate concept to human rights. Removing reference to fundamental is not something we discussed. Use internationally recognized human rights.

- Problematic when need to define fundamental.  

- Confirm most international and neutral wording with lawyers 

- The text of the Council of Europe Declaration on ICANN which I referred to on Saturday says internationally recognised human rights laws and standards."  

--> This could be a compromise.

- It does not make reference to standards.

ACTION ITEM - Add wording - internationally recognised human rights laws and standards -  and wait for our public comment assesment to establish next steps. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Add wording - internationally recognised human rights laws and standards -  and wait for our public comment assesment to establish next steps. 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (10/2/2015 09:56) Welcome to  WP4 Meeting #5 on 2 October @ 15:00 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:00) yesx

  Brenda Brewer: (10:00) Yes, loud and clear

  David McAuley: (10:01) Thanks leon, hello all

  David McAuley: (10:01) Leon, that is

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:01) Hello all!

  Marilia Maciel: (10:02) Hello everyone

  David McAuley: (10:02) Agreed

  Niels ten Oever: (10:02) Hi all

  Matthew Shears: (10:02) Hello

  Matthew Shears: (10:03) also need to look at the discussion points from LA

  Marilia Maciel: (10:04) You are referrig to the spreadsheet, right, Leon? This is where the information is consolidated, I i suppose?

  Niels ten Oever: (10:04) audio dropping for me

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:05) no probme with audio here, clear and loud

  Marilia Maciel: (10:05) It sounds ok here, Niels

  Matthew Shears: (10:07) I assume that we have to make that proposal if that is what the comments suggest - but that should be as a result of our analysis of the comments right that are due oct 12

  David McAuley: (10:07) I have read most, but not yet all, of the public comments

  Greg Shatan: (10:08) Among the things not completely clear, Leon's name.

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:08) Greg :D :D :D

  Niels ten Oever: (10:09) Text 2 is mostly supported, right?

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:10) Is tehre any specific reason why we are going for commitment + bylaw instead of proposing bylaw language? I am somehow against adding an additional layer

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:10) ah, ok listening now, but not convinced yet.

  David McAuley: (10:11) Greg, if we can settle on a doc like the Google doc would that constitute the framework that you suggest?

  Matthew Shears: (10:12) think we need to follow the approach of analyzing the commetns etc. first

  ellen blackler: (10:13) agree with Matthew

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:13) Agree with Marilia!

  Niels ten Oever: (10:15) +1 Marilia I also thought we would be getting feedback from the lawyers on our proposed text that most people agreed to in the comments.

  Niels ten Oever: (10:19) yes

  Marilia Maciel: (10:19) If the deadline to present the assessment of the comments is in Dublin, we need to have it done in advance. When is our deadline?

  Matthew Shears: (10:20) oct 12

  Leon Sanchez: (10:20) Yes Marilia. Deadline is October 12

  Marilia Maciel: (10:21) Thanks. What is the approach to do it? We all read and who proposes the first draft of the assessment of comments?

  Matthew Shears: (10:22) whoever volunteers - usually 2 or 3 persons

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:22) if we have to refer to something. let's agree on this first instead of just working on the document blindly :)

  Leon Sanchez: (10:23) Exactly Tatiana

  David McAuley: (10:23) Agree w/Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:24) Greg, +1. It will be easy to draft the note after we decide on the language. It will just reflect the discussions

  Matthew Shears: (10:24) yep

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:25) How can we be sure that no controversial susbstance will be added?

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:25) like the bylaw comes back from the lawyers and we see something we discussed and decided to drop

  Matthew Shears: (10:26) legal counsel make suggestions the ccwg decides

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:27) ok good

  ellen blackler: (10:28) i will volunteer

  Marilia Maciel: (10:29) I read most of them too. I can volunteer

  Matthew Shears: (10:29) i can assist

  Alice Jansen: (10:29) Volunteers: Ellen Blackler - Leon Sanchez - Marilia Maciel - Matthew Shears

  Greg Shatan: (10:29) I am volunteering by use of a check mark.

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:29) I can join the team too

  Alice Jansen: (10:29) Volunteers: Ellen Blackler - Leon Sanchez - Marilia Maciel - Matthew Shears - David McAuley - Greg Shatan

  Niels ten Oever: (10:29) I am also volunteering to assist

  Alice Jansen: (10:30) Final list of volunteers Volunteers: Ellen Blackler - Leon Sanchez - Marilia Maciel - Matthew Shears - David McAuley - Greg Shatan - Niels Ten Oever

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:30) Alice, could you add me as well? or is it final?

  Alice Jansen: (10:30) yes :-) Happy to

  Brenda Brewer: (10:30) Next WP4 Meeting :  WP4 Meeting – Thursday, 8 October 2015 from 21:00 – 22:30 UTC

  David McAuley: (10:30) OK - there are enough, including me, to do this in time - we need to divide effort somehow

  Matthew Shears: (10:31) almost the whole WP

  Marilia Maciel: (10:31) ok

  David McAuley: (10:31) Thanks Leon - it makes sense to me

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:31) The WP is much bigger :) at least the list on the web page

  Matthew Shears: (10:32) just kidding

  David McAuley: (10:32) Ticks will do that to you Greg

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:32) The one suggested by Jonathan Zuck

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:32) Matthew :)

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:33) which has been agreed by WP1

  Matthew Shears: (10:33) yes the Zuck model is a good one

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:33) we will provide the link

  David McAuley: (10:33) Thanks Berniw

  David McAuley: (10:33) Bernie, that is

  Alice Jansen: (10:33)

  Alice Jansen: (10:34) Link to J. Zuck template

  Rudi Daniel: (10:36) will read the transcript as I have a meeting currenly..regards.

  Matthew Shears: (10:36) well we will have to synthesize I suspect - so two step review commetns and then synthesize

  David McAuley: (10:37) This sounds like a nearly objective task - can we divide the work up rather than all comment on all

  Marilia Maciel: (10:38) David, there are not that many comments that directly mention this issue

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:38) there are 8 people. Not so many comments. I think it's gonna be fine

  Marilia Maciel: (10:38) For comparison purposes, I think there is value in everyone reading all comments

  Marilia Maciel: (10:39) They are usually short

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:39) Marilia +1

  Greg Shatan: (10:40) Should each of us start with five comments and then move round robin to look at all the comments.

  Matthew Shears: (10:40) yes - we should look at LA transcripts as well

  Gonzalo Navarro: (10:40) Taht´s correct Leon

  Gonzalo Navarro: (10:40) That´s

  David McAuley: (10:42) Nice analogy

  David McAuley: (10:42) Fore!

  Alice Jansen: (10:42) Link to LA transcript -

  Greg Shatan: (10:42) We need to work between the calls!

  Matthew Shears: (10:42) we could just copy paste the commetns intoi the google doc and then the Zuck model above and just start reviewing and drafting

  Niels ten Oever: (10:43) Sounds very workable Matthew

  Brenda Brewer: (10:43) 22:00  on is open on 6 Oct

  Greg Shatan: (10:43) 19:00 is taken by WP1

  Greg Shatan: (10:44) After that is fine.

  Niels ten Oever: (10:44) 22h which timezone?

  Marilia Maciel: (10:44) Yes, just a quick comment

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:44) I am the only one agreeing :)

  Greg Shatan: (10:44) UTC

  David McAuley: (10:44) 22:00 UTC fine w me

  kavouss arasteh: (10:44) Brenda

  kavouss arasteh: (10:44) Pls advise to dial me up

  Marilia Maciel: (10:44) And yes, I agree with the call, although I will not be able to make it

  Brenda Brewer: (10:44) 10:00 UTC til  16:00 UTC has open time also

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:44) 22 UTC? We are going to have fun here in Europe .

  Greg Shatan: (10:45) UTC is the Official Time Zone of ICANN

  Brenda Brewer: (10:45) will send Doodle momentarily

  Greg Shatan: (10:46) Speaking of "fun", I note that the CCWG ACCT meeting that day is 06:00 UTC (2-4 am here in NYC).

  David McAuley: (10:46) Correct, 2-4 am here in DC area

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:46) after fun we from Europe had at LA meeting (time-zones-wise) nothing is scary

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:48) @Greg - yes the comments have to be broken down into the various

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:48) Not in Excel

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:49) re different colours

  Greg Shatan: (10:51) So I see, same problem in Google Sheets

  Greg Shatan: (10:51) My capacities are not far beyond those of mortal men.

  Greg Shatan: (10:52) I cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound.

  Greg Shatan: (10:52) I am not faster than a speeding locomotive.

  Matthew Shears: (10:52) Greg :)

  Tatiana Tropina: (10:54) Greg :D :D :D

  Matthew Shears: (10:54) Leon - these are things that we would note in the analysis I would have thought

  Matthew Shears: (10:57) understood

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:57) 2.    Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights.

  kavouss arasteh 2: (10:58) Now is ok

  kavouss arasteh 2: (10:58)  TKS

  David McAuley: (10:58) no objection here

  David McAuley: (10:59) please mute

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:00) lEON

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:01) The verb  " WILL " needs to be replaced by" SHALL"

  Niels ten Oever: (11:03) But it is in the bylaws, the bylaws indicate the intentions/obligations of the entity, right?

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:03) due to the fact that the former one  is deterministic and the latter is mandatory and legal

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:03) I think any language will go through lawyers

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:03) aw Leon is saying this

  Greg Shatan: (11:04) Adams on Drafting:

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:04) Thanks Greg. Very helpful for foreign lawyers.

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:04) Greg

  Brenda Brewer: (11:04) Doodle poll sent...please respond as soon as you can!  Thank you!

  David McAuley: (11:05) Thanks for link, I shall have a read

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:05) I spent 40 yrears dealing will shall, should, will, would, may, might , and so on

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:05) I am serious about what I am telling

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:06) and also can or could or endeavour to or or endeavour doing ....

  Leon Sanchez: (11:06) We get your point Kavouss. It is a serious one and will be taken into account. Thanks for bringing it up

  Greg Shatan: (11:07) Let's deal withthe substance first, please.

  David McAuley: (11:07) I am concerned with making a distinction between fuundamental and human rights - how would we know what fundamental rights are that are not also human rights?

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:08) I think we earlier agreed to remove the word "fundamental"

  Avri Doria: (11:08) sorry i am so late was  chairing an IGF Best pratice forum meeting.

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:08) But we seemed to agree on something many times so I lost track.

  Matthew Shears: (11:08) we should remove fundamental

  David McAuley: (11:09) We are adding a call Avri on Tuesday the 6th - will get a doodle poll in a bit

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:09) Mathieu+ 1

  Greg Shatan: (11:09) As I understand it, fundamental rights are the corollary of human rights but applied to entities rather than humans.

  Avri Doria: (11:09) unfortaunte tuesday /wednesday i wil miss most all meemtings as i have some very rare paying work i must attend to - a face to face meeting.

  David McAuley: (11:09) Thanks Greg, need to give this more thought so I will not comment now

  Niels ten Oever: (11:09) The drafting period of that doc has closed unfortunately

  Avri Doria: (11:10) unless of course it is the eveing or the wee hours.

  David McAuley: (11:10) May be in the evening - possibly 22:00 UTC

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:10) Greg, if we go for "human" without fundamental, it will be broad enough to cover fundamental

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:10) "human" are applicable to entities (court decisions, etc)

  Greg Shatan: (11:11) I agree, we should not modify "human rights" by "fundamental."  However, the issue of "fundamental rights" is separate.

  Marilia Maciel: (11:11) Fundamental is usually used on national instruments, in a particular jurisdiction, like in a country's constitution. In international instruments we usually use human rights. I agree we should drop fundamental.

  David McAuley: (11:11) we already have a CCWG call in wee hours 06:00 to 08:00 UTC

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:11) Mrilia +1 thanks for such a clear point

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:11) (sorry, typo, I meant Marilia)

  ellen blackler: (11:11) agree

  David McAuley: (11:11) Agreed

  Marilia Maciel: (11:12) I did not understand Greg

  David McAuley: (11:12) But I thought we were tasked with looking at human rights

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:13) This is redundancy....

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:13) It's like referring to a car and four wheels as a part of it

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:13) I do not agree with Greg  proposal I hope he forgives me

  kavouss arasteh 2: (11:14) aVRI+ 1

  Leon Sanchez: (11:15) To me, speaking personally of course, human rights are in nature fundamental therefore would go with just human righte

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:15) avri + 1

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:15) in addition it's hard to define fundamental without referring to national  jurisdictions' context

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:16) +1 Marilia

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:16) absolutely. It's odd to make reference to fundamental on the international level

  Greg Shatan: (11:17) To be clear, I am not in favor of "fundamental human rights"

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:17) Greg, absolutely, that's understood, but you want to separate and refer to both, but it doesn't make sense

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (11:18) The text of the Council of Europe Declaration on ICANN which I referred to on Saturday says internationally recognised human rights laws and standards." 

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:18) my first question when I see such a reference will be "an which jurisdiction does this refer to?"

  David McAuley: (11:18) Thanks Mark - seems very good

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:19) Looks good to me.

  David McAuley: (11:19) I like that Leon

  Marilia Maciel: (11:20) I would still prefer only human rights for being general and culture neutral

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:21) I know that after public comments we better to consider references to documents but I am still not convinced it's a good idea.

  Marilia Maciel: (11:21) Ok, sounds good

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:22) To Human Rights conventions, etc

  Marilia Maciel: (11:23) Thanks, Mark

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (11:24) Glad to be of some help!

  David McAuley: (11:24) Agree w/Kavouss

  David McAuley: (11:25) None here

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) Leon, thanks a lot!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:25) bye all

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) bye all

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (11:25) Very helpful call - thanks to eveyone. Bye

  David McAuley: (11:25) Thanks all, bye

  Niels ten Oever: (11:25) Thanks

  Marilia Maciel: (11:25) Bye!

  • No labels