Sub-group Members: Andrew Mack, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris LaHatte, Corinne Cath, Daniel Appelman, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, John Laprise, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Nigel Roberts, Rachel Pollack, Rudi Daniel, Shreedeep Rayamajhi, Stefania Milan, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa (25)
Observers/Guests: Irene Borissova, Isable Rutherfurd, Lee Hibbard, Peter Micek, Silvana Rivero (5)
Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Ergys Ramij, Mike Brennan, Yvette Guigneaux
Apologies: Bastiaan Goslings, Anne Aikman-Scalese
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: **Technical Issue with recording Part 1 | Part 2
The audio recording is available here: **Technical Issue with recording Part 1 | Part 2
Agenda
1. Administrivia, Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
2. Discussion on Working Methods
3. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law
4. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI
5. AOB
Notes
Notes (including relevant parts of chat):
1. Administrivia, Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
2. Discussion on Working Methods
- Niels ten Oever: Google Document is messy but is a testament to the work going on.
- Tatiana Tropina: Leave the Google doc as a main drafting tool and then hold a Skype (or other) call and take notes and then go back to the document.
- Greg Shatan: Google doc is being stretched but still think it is a good tool for us. Maybe just need to manage our inputs better using the various functions available. Everyone should work in Suggestion mode.
- Tatiana Tropina: Wiki no please not for this task.
- Rudi Daniel: yes, so far Google docs works as well as a tool.
- Tijamni Ben Jemaa: Google docs is not usable everywhere in the world. Experience using the Wiki was better (audio cutting out).
- Tatiana Tropina: (sorry for being so direct, I just can't use wiki for this type of drafting).
- Niels ten Oever: Have checked with ICANN staff and there are currently no additional tools available for this in the Wiki at this time.
- Kavous Arasteh: Not in support of Google docs. Difficult to use. Many of the comments in the Google doc are not useful.
- Stefania Milan: It seems to me that Greg's proposal to accept minor editorial changes, and especially to create historical versions, is very logical and easy to implement
- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I support the wiki as archive and connections to various more collaborative tools though
- Avri Doria: any confusion in the drive doc is due to confusion in the group, not a tool problem. yes, wiki is good storage and archival tool.
3. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law
- David McAuley: I have provided my input on Applicable Law and then have provided a boiled down version. Applicable Law is discernable if there is a question on the floor but not if there is not.
- Matthew Shears: David - your suggestions were very helpful
- Nigel Roberts: I disagree with that definition. The term would be construed strictly by any court interpreting the by law.
- Kavous Arasteh: Recommend people should comment on the written document in writing on the list.
- Nigel Roberts: Human rights law only applies to public actors UNLESS we voluntarily adopt particular instruments.
- Tatiana Tropina: Nigel it can be also some other laws, not only HR + HR is for the states, but it gets translated to the laws and regulations, I can come up with many examples how it is translated in the national law and binds any actors.
- Nigel Roberts: There is no applicable HR law to ICANN unless we voluntary adopt parts of things like Ruggie.
- Rudi Daniel: This definition makes more sense IMO.....Applicable law is a specific concept of private international law and refers to the national law that governs a given question of law in an international context. A court hearing an action does not necessarily apply its national law to settle the dispute.
- Greg Shatan: There are laws that apply to entities and individuals via the state wrt HR.
- Nigel Roberts: Human rights law only applies to public actors UNLESS we voluntarily adopt particular instruments.
- Tatiana Tropina: There is no applicable HR law, but there many laws that contain the elements related to HR. Criminal prohibition on slavery is one of the obvious examples.
- David McAuley (RySG): I stand by my thoughts in my longer and shorter emails - I also think HR principles work their way into laws that apply to ICANN and I think the twice reference in the bylaw makes this important.
- Nigel Roberts: What applicable law applies to ICANN in the matter of free expression? The First Amendment doesn't
- Matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana, Greg and David
- Tatiana Tropina: Nigel, you want ICANN to create this law on it's own? Or create its own rules on FOE that it will be enforcing? It directly contradicts the bylaw
- Niels ten Oever 2: @greg - that seems out of scope, or at least outside of our capacity.
- Jorge Cancio: thanks to DM. This is a good basis but have some concerns wrt NR has raised. Would be good to compare our definition vs the definition of ICANN legal.
- David McAuley (RySG): putting bylaw language aside for a moment, what would apply? Hard to ask as the bylaws language is what it is.
- Nigel Roberts: I wish people would actually read the remarks of the learned judge in .XXX v ICANN IRP.
- Tatiana Tropina: I lowered my hand, because Greg said everything I wanted to say. The onlt thing I would still like to reiterate is my thanks to David. This definition suggested by him reflects the scope of the term and the changing nature of laws and regulations.
- Nigel Roberts: Nothing applies by default. Agree that the core value is very important
- David McAuley (RySG): I think ICANN's commitment to respect HR is significant
- Avri Doria: I thought the commitment was meant to be empty from the beginning. certainly was always an empty phrase.
- Greg Shatan: Applicable law is not that malleable and elusive.
- Chris LaHatte: if nothing applies by default then we reach consensus on what we want, that seems logic
- Nigel Roberts: It BECOMES applicable when ICANN voluntarily agrees to it.
- Tatiana Tropina: I disagree
- Greg Shatan: That's not how applicable law works.
- Nigel Roberts: Anything else is domestic black letter law.
- Greg Shatan: Or the law generally. Applicable law is the law that ICANN is subject to.
- Nigel Roberts: Exactly, Greg. California law, for example.
- Erich Schweighofer: Applicable law is a reality, different according to the jurisdiction. Human rights are determined by the applicable law that should comply with the international human rights obligations of the respective jurisdiction.
- Nigel Roberts: Turkish law for example.
- John Laprise: agreed
- David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Niels - think it would be good to hear from ICANN legal on this
- Tatiana Tropina: Agree about ICANN legal
- Greg Shatan: Turkish law only applies in limited circumstances. I would assume only to actions taken in Turkey.
- Nigel Roberts: Probably.
- Matthew Shears: good then we are all on the same page
- Nigel Roberts: Point I was making is that many jurisdictions' law is applicable law where ICANN's actions have an effect in that jurisdiction. I could just as easily have said Belgian law, or DC law - all places where ICANN has offices and staff
- Kavous Arasteh: Voluntary or mandatory is the key -
- Niels ten Oever: We should move this to the list. Please read and comment.
4. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI
- Niels ten Oever: Let us go through this part by part and let us not do any wordsmithing.
- Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 Avri - there is however a principle in law (at least in continental Europe) that a provision has to be construed so as to give it a purpose, a meaning...
- Nigel Roberts: Jorge - i totally agree - but don't expect ICANN to take a teleological view
- Greg Shatan: This is a draft document at this point. Taking Ruggie as is, is not what should be done.
- Avri doria: Ruggie should be seen and an integral piece, either we take all of it or walk away from it.
- Matthew shears: I think we can find guidance in Ruggie at this stage.
- Tatiana Tropina: I agree with Avri in general - they are integral piece and we shall use them as inspiration, but they are so much about implementation that it's impossible to use them as a piece
- Matthew Shears: agree - the implementation is far beyond our mandate
- David McAuley (RySG): Agree w Tatiana
- Avri Doria: I am becoming convinced that it is an empty mandate.
- Nigel Roberts: Can I propose, please, that we reiew secetion 58 of ICM Registry v ICANN please?? This deals with applicable international law. " ICANN voluntarily subjected itself to these general principles in its Articles of Incorporation, something that both California law permits and that is typical in international arbitrations, especially when public goods are at stake. "
- Mathew Shears: Our mandate is to take this back what is required. The problem with Ruggie is that is goes into implementation which is beyond our mandate but we can be inspired by it. I don't think we have hashed out the various parts to go through it in detail
- Niels ten Oever 2: @TT - Not in detail, high level, to see where the thinking is going. And so we can profit from the ideas from people out side of the drafting team.
- Lee Hibbard: have been following the last calls closely. Ruggie is a starting point for ICANN but should not be the only one. Council of Europe (where I work) will release shortly a document about the HR implications of many TLDs. We need to mindful of HR principles but we should not go into implementation.
- Jorge Cancio: I agree with MS - Ruggie is good for guidance but they are not the right level vs WS1 recommendations. The drafters have been working intensively for the last 3 or 4 days. There is much common ground on general topics if not on specific wording. We all agree that the mission is a core boundary…….
- Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge, these are already known and we need not to repeat them again
- Brett Schaefer: Sorry, but we seem to be going in circles. Aside for applicable law, which has been clarified to some extent, this conversation is just reiterating what we discussed in the last few calls. We still do not seem any closer to defining respect for human rights, etc.
- Avri Doria: I do not see any room for proposals as long as we are stuck with existing law. we are already covered by that and it adds nothing.
- Brett Schaefer: Matthew and Tatiana, sorry, I don't see the progress. The same fundamental disagreements remain unresolved.
- Tatiana Tropina: I didn't expect them to be resolved in one week.
- Erich Schweighofer: There is applicable law and international human rights law (HRC, ECtHR etc.). ICANN has to position itself in this network. Neutral, supportive (Ruggie) or laissez-faire (States).
- Tatiana Tropina: But I appreciate your feedback :) we will try harder :)
- Nigel Roberts: Please refer ICM Registry v ICANN
- Matthew Shears: Brett feel free to make suggestions
- Avri Doria: WS1 did not work out because people want the fig leaf of HR, without any commitment to HR. that is now quite obvious.
- Niels ten Oever: Staff to ask ICANN legal for their interpretation of applicable law and comment on our draft one. Work on the drafting team should continue and new members are welcome to join.
- Brett Schaefer: I have, they have been rejected. Part of the disagreements I mentioned. We need to narrow our focus to rights likely to be related to ICANN's work and clarify what ICANN's responsibilities are. But that would be "cherry picking".
- Niels ten Oever 2: @Brett - we have been having a list of documents for quite a while.
- Greg Shatan: We should not be cherry picking. Unfortunate the transcript of the last meeting has not been posted on the Wiki. Agree with BS. Until we get past simply applying Ruggie completely we will never progress.
- Avri Doria: I find the blockage to existing law unhelpful. existing law adds NOTHING new.
- John Laprise: +1 Avri
- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Avri
- Chris LaHatte: Ruggie etc are a guide so we choose what we want
- Greg Shatan: Ruggie cannot be the only guidance. It's like going to a city and told there is only one guidebook.
- Niels ten Oever: We have reached the end of the call. Looking forward to continuing the discussion online. Adjourned.
Action Items:
- Staff to contact ICANN legal regarding their interpretation of applicable law and their comments on the sub-group’s proposed definition.
- Staff to post transcript of last call of sub-group as soon as possible.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #9 on 11 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC!
Niels ten Oever:Hello everyone
Markus Kummer:Hi everyone
Herb Waye Ombuds:Greetings all... Hello Adobe please be nice to me today :-)
Yvette Guigneaux:I agree with you there Herb! )
Niels ten Oever:Let's all hum for the adobe code to ensure it will not punish us.
Markus Kummer:May the Adobe be with you!
Tatiana Tropina:Hi all
Tatiana Tropina:Can't connect on the phone bridge, will try to dial in :(
Tatiana Tropina:Brenda, what is the dial-in number for germany? The web site is not available
John Laprise:Hello all
Brenda Brewer:one moment please Tatiana
Brenda Brewer:see Private chat Tatiana. Thank you!
Tatiana Tropina:Oh thanks brenda, the phone bridge finally worked. Sorry for disturbance. But I will save the dial in for any next time of trouble :)
Tatiana Tropina:thanks a million!
Brenda Brewer:you're quite welcome!
David McAuley (RySG):Hi Brenda, I am 4154
Brenda Brewer:Thank you David!
Tatiana Tropina:sorry everyone that a document looks like a big mess now :) we are working on it
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi I'm the swiss number...
Brenda Brewer:Thank you Jorge!
Kavouss Arasteh:dear brenda
Kavouss Arasteh:THE LINE IS DISCONNECTED
Brenda Brewer:Calling you back Kavouss.
Niels ten Oever 2:Am happy to support that
David McAuley (RySG):Decent idea Tatiana
Kavouss Arasteh:WHAT WE DO THEN NOW
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:I feel the call should be open to anyone interested
Chris LaHatte:hi to all
Tatiana Tropina:Jorge, I forgot to mention this as well, yes, shall be open
rudi daniel:Rudi...hi all
Tatiana Tropina:And I still insist that the google doc is the best instrument for drafting in the group so far
Tatiana Tropina:Doc + an open call (not on this platform, may be jitsy or skype)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):important points on Mx of our Google docs working Greg
Tatiana Tropina:Wiki no please not for this task.
rudi daniel:yes, so far Google docs works as well as a ot the.
Yvette Guigneaux:There is still a host here folks so you're not alone =)
Yvette Guigneaux:Working on how to fix that annoying announcement, apologies
Tatiana Tropina:Thanks Yvette, I started developing the abandonment syndrome :)
rudi daniel:'as any other'.
matthew shears:I think if we follow Greg's suggestions Google docs work just fine
David McAuley (RySG):Thanks for discussion and the input from the drafters, it is what it is and we can deal with it.
Tatiana Tropina:There was Jorge in the queue
Nigel Roberts:+1 Greg
Tatiana Tropina:+1 to Greg, too.
Niels ten Oever 2:Where is it blocked Tijani?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Matthew
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:No additional comments on the Google Doc etc
Tatiana Tropina:Well this drafting team is using google doc. We can't use wiki because it's not convenient for us. If other drafting team prefers wiki, they are free to use it
Tatiana Tropina:(sorry for being so direct, I just can't use wiki for this type of drafting)
David McAuley (RySG):oops Tijani cutting out
Greg Shatan:Personally, I've never used the ICANN wiki for drafting. My experience is with Wikipedia (long-time editor) and ICANNWiki.
avri doria:wiki is useless for collaborative work
avri doria:drive docs are the best there is these days. anything less will be a loss of function.
Tatiana Tropina:We are developing a concrete proposal.
Chris LaHatte:google..no real option
Stefania Milan:It seems to me that Greg's proposal to accept minor editorial changes, and especially to create historical versions, is very logical and easy to implement
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I support the wiki as archive and connections to various more collaborative tools though
avri doria:any confusion in the drive doc is due to confusion in the group, not a tool problem.
avri doria:yes, wiki is good storage and archival tool.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No doubt true Avri ;-)
matthew shears:+ 1 avri
Greg Shatan:Don't blame the tool....
Chris LaHatte:+1 Avri and Cheryl
Greg Shatan:Of course, there may be some tools in the group. :-)
avri doria:the way to deal with tool discomfort is to send out a pdf each week of the current drive snapshot.
Shreedeep Rayamajhi:+1
avri doria:now now Greg.
Greg Shatan:I will atone tonight and tomorrow.
avri doria:oh yeah
matthew shears:David - your suggestions were very helpful
Nigel Roberts:I disagree with that definition.
Tatiana Tropina:David, thanks a lot for this. The most constructive suggestion of the week... or may be of the month :)
Nigel Roberts:The term would be construed strictly by any court interpreting the by law.
David McAuley (RySG):hard to hear
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):not a lawyer but it makes sense to me
Niels ten Oever 2:Audio is very bad Kavouss
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Can't understand Kavous
Tatiana Tropina:Audio was too bad
Greg Shatan:Nigel, what's your disagreement?
Nigel Roberts:Human rights law only applies to public actors UNLESS we voluntarily adopt particular instruments.
David McAuley (RySG):can hear
Tatiana Tropina:Nigel it can be also some other laws, not only HR + HR is for the states, but it gets translated to the laws and regulations, I can come up with many examples how it is translated in the national law and binds any actors.
Tatiana Tropina:There is no applicable HR law, but there many laws that contain the elements related to HR. Criminal prohibion on slavery is one of the obvious examples.
rudi daniel:This definition makes more sense IMO.....
Applicable law is a specific concept of private international law and refers to the national law that governs a given question of law in an international context. A court hearing an action does not necessarily apply its national law to settle the dispute.
David McAuley (RySG):I stand by my thoughts in my longer and shorter emails - I also think HR principles work their way into laws that apply to ICANN and I think the twice reference in the bylaw makes this important.
Nigel Roberts:What applicable law applies to ICANN in the matter of free expression?
Nigel Roberts:The First Amendment doesn't
matthew shears:+ 1 Tatiana, Greg and David
Tatiana Tropina:Nigel, you want ICANN to create this law on it's own? Or create its own rules on FOE that it will be enforcing? It directly contradics the bylaw
Niels ten Oever 2:@greg - that seems out of scope, or at least outside of our capacity.
David McAuley (RySG):putting bylaw language aside for a moment, what would apply? Hard to ask as the bylaws language is what it is.
Nigel Roberts:I wish people would actually read the remarks of the learned judge in .XXX v ICANN IRP.
Tatiana Tropina:I lowered my hand, because Greg said everything I wanted to say. The onlt thing I would still like to reiterate is my thanks to David. This definition suggested by him reflects the scope of the term and the changing nature of laws and regulations.
Nigel Roberts:Nothing applies by default.
Nigel Roberts:Agree that the core value is very important
Greg Shatan:@Tatiana, thanks!
David McAuley (RySG):I think ICANN's commitment to respect HR is significant
avri doria:i thought the committment was meant to be empty from the beginning. certainly was laways an empty phrase.
Greg Shatan:Applicable law is not that malleable and elusive.
Chris LaHatte:if nothing applies by default then we reach consensus on what we want, that seems logic
Nigel Roberts:It BECOMES applicable when ICANN voluntarily agrees to it.
Tatiana Tropina:I disagree
Greg Shatan:That's not how applicable law works.
Nigel Roberts:Anything else is domestic black letter law.
Greg Shatan:Or the law generally.
Greg Shatan:Applicable law is the law that ICANN is subject to.
Nigel Roberts:Exactly, Greg.
Nigel Roberts:California law, for example.
Erich Schweighofer:Applicable law is a reality, different according to the jurisdiction. HUman rights are determined by the applicalbe law that should comply with the international human rights obligations of the respective jurisdiction.
Nigel Roberts:Turkish law for example.
John Laprise:agreed
David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Niels - think it would be good to hear from ICANN legal on this
Nigel Roberts:old hand
Tatiana Tropina:Agree about ICANN legal
Greg Shatan:Turkish law only applies in llimited circumstances. I would assume only to actions taken in Turkey.
Nigel Roberts:Probably . .
matthew shears:good then we are all on the same page
Nigel Roberts:Point I was making is that many jurisdictions' law is applicable law where ICANN's actions habe an effect in that jurisdiction.
Nigel Roberts:I could just as easily habe said Belgian law, or DC law
Nigel Roberts:all places where ICANN has offices.
Nigel Roberts:and staff
Chris LaHatte:so rather Han spend time worrying about what is applicable, let's settle on what we want
matthew shears:I think that is right Nigel - and I think that is what we have been focussed on
Tatiana Tropina:I suggest that Greg or Jorge start :)
Tatiana Tropina:I voluntell them.
Brenda Brewer:you may scroll and use full screen feature if you wish
avri doria:this is a null bylaw as long as we insist it means on the existing laws that we already bound to.
avri doria:and if that is the conclusion we are stuck with, why are we going around in circles?
Nigel Roberts:Personally, I am fairly happy if we adopted something along the Ruggie model and stated ICANN considers it applicable.
Nigel Roberts:It would then apply in private law, not public law
avri doria:yeah and i would be happy to win the lottery
Chris LaHatte:exactly Nigel, we decide what we think is needed
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:+1 Avri - there is however a principle in law (at least in continental europe) that a provision has to be construed so as to give it a purpose, a meaning...
Tatiana Tropina:totally a sausage. Or Huggies.
Nigel Roberts:Jorge - i totally agree - but don't expect ICANN to take a teleological view
Nigel Roberts:It's almost impossible for us common-law trained people to do
Herb Waye Ombuds:dead screen no sound...
Niels ten Oever 2:Yellow is TT, purple is Matt
David McAuley (RySG):is the appearance on screen the same as in google doc when working on it - it wasn't for me
matthew shears:I thought I was dark greeen
Kavouss Arasteh:Secretariat, pls correct the note that you mistakenly quoted from me, I did not say ,it exclude international law, I just referred to my impression of what I heard
Bernard Turcotte:ok avous
Niels ten Oever 2:Doc can also be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-2DZUNii4iVd-2DjQwx9eZ01CGFw_edit&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=qNS89BysCbkRZlnggYW1OHhv1GG1amXBQUH2iAvhXbg&s=Venmw7vaYOQq0TPKhUIWvIBeYzbaiJOGLOJTs7k2NVg&e=
David McAuley (RySG):@Matthew, it's not easy being green
Tatiana Tropina:it's oainful. Being green
Tatiana Tropina:painful
avri doria:Ruggie should be seen and an integral peice, either wwe take all of it or walk away from it.
matthew shears:I think we can find guidance in ruggie at this stage
Tatiana Tropina:I agree with Avri in general - they are integral piece and we shall use them as inspiration, but they are so much about implementation that it's impossible to use them as a piece
matthew shears:agree - the implementaiton is far beyond our mandate
David McAuley (RySG):Agree w Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina:yes we can hear you.
avri doria:i am becoming convinced that it is an empty manadate.
Nigel Roberts:Can I propose, please, that we reiew secetion 58 of ICM Registry v ICANN please??
Nigel Roberts:This deals with applicable international law.
Nigel Roberts:" ICANN voluntarily subjected itself to these general principles in its Articles of Incorporation, something that both California law permits and that is typical in international arbitrations, especially when public goods are at stake. "
David McAuley (RySG):And agree w Matthew
Tatiana Tropina:Niels, I think at this stage it doesn't make sense to really go through all the pieces, though we can certainly try
Tatiana Tropina:there is still much of just figuring out what to do with the pieces.
Bernard Turcotte:that is now fixed re Kavous
matthew shears:I don't think we have hased out the various parts to go through it in detail
Niels ten Oever 2:@TT - Not in detail, high level, to see where the thinking is going.
Niels ten Oever 2:And so we can profit from the ideas from people out side of the drafting team
Niels ten Oever 2:and perhaps draft people into the drafting team :)
Tatiana Tropina:I am losing my voice because of the cold, so am now more in the typing mode, but in general I agree with what Matt and Greg provided as an overview
Tatiana Tropina:Oh would be good to have more people :-) Who's gonna join? David - are you up for this one? :D
David McAuley (RySG):cannot hear
Tatiana Tropina:I have difficulties hearing Lee
matthew shears:can't hear you Lee
Nigel Roberts:I need to depart within the next 5 mns...
Nigel Roberts:Agree with lee abou baseline
Tatiana Tropina:Great to hear you Jorge :) go go drafting team!
avri doria:i think we either accept Ruggies as the baseline, or we call this for what it is, a new suit of clothes for the emporer.
Kavouss Arasteh:Thank you Jorge not referring to my comments which were similar to those of Lee
Chris LaHatte:at the risk of boring you with repetition, we have to d code what we want rather than just say Ruggie or other codes
Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge, these are already known and we need not to repeat them again
Brett Schaefer:SOrry, but we seem to be going in circles. Aside for applicable law, which has been clarified to some extent, this conversation is just reiterating what we dicussed in the last few calls. We still do not seem any closer to defining respect for human rights, etc.
Chris LaHatte:decide..
matthew shears:working on it Brett - getting there in the google doc - albeit needs more time and work
avri doria:Exactly Brett.
Kavouss Arasteh:Respent is respedct .we do n ot need to interprete that
Nigel Roberts:Chris - What we need as a miniumu, using the ECHR shorthand is Arts 6, 8, 10 and Art 1 of Prot 1.
Tatiana Tropina:Brett, we are getting there.
Niels ten Oever 2:More concrete suggestions are always welcome Avri and Brett, either on the list or even as part of drafting team.
Kavouss Arasteh:Respect
avri doria:i do not see any room for proposals as long as we are stuck with existing law.
avri doria:we are already convered by that and it adds nothing.
matthew shears:@ avri - not sure I understand
Brett Schaefer:Matthew and Tatiana, sorry, I don't see the progress.
Brett Schaefer:The same fundamental disagreements remain unresolved.
Tatiana Tropina:I didn't expect them to be resolved in one week.
Erich Schweighofer:There is applicable law and international human rights law (HRC, ECtHR etc.). ICANN has to position itself in this network. Neutral, supportive (Ruggie) or laissez-faire (States).
Tatiana Tropina:But I appreciate your feedback :) we will try harder :)
avri doria:seems a binary case. either we are only bound to that to which we are already bound, or we have the ability to bind ourselves to something more.
Chris LaHatte:we can agree on what we need
Brett Schaefer:@Tatiana, this is the ninth meeting. Been more than a week.
David McAuley (RySG):I tend to agree that these discussions, while at times frustrating, are mving things forward. This is not easy - that is why WS1 did not work this out.
Nigel Roberts:Please refer ICM Registry v ICANN
Nigel Roberts:when ask the Qualified QUestion of legal
matthew shears:Brett feel free to make suggestions
avri doria:WS1 did not work out beasue people want the fig leaf of HR, without any committment to HR. that is now quite obvious.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Kavouss: I've been kicked out repeatedly... I fear I did noot hear you...
Tatiana Tropina:WS1 could have ended up with no bylaw at all
Brett Schaefer:I have, they have been rejected. Part of the disagreements I mentioned. We need to narrow our focus to rights likely to be related to ICANN's work and clarify what ICANN's responsibilities are. But that owuld be "cherry picking".
Niels ten Oever 2:@Brett - we have been having a list of documents for quite a while.
Brett Schaefer:@Niels, those documents are too broad and largely irrelevant to ICANN's work.
Niels ten Oever 2:UDHR, ICESCR, ICCPR, etc
Niels ten Oever 2:Interesting position
avri doria:i find the bloackage to existing law unhelpful
John Laprise:+1 Avri
avri doria:existing law adds NOTHING new.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Avri
Chris LaHatte:Ruggie etc are a guide so we choose what we want
avri doria:the FoI is - obey existing law. period.
Nigel Roberts:further to the point it's not something that you can take away either.
Bernard Turcotte:Time is up
Brett Schaefer:@Niels, it is, from what I have understood, a general sense that only 4-5 humna rights are central to ICANN's work.
David McAuley (RySG):Thank you Niels for your pleasant equanimity through the call, thanks staff, good bye all
avri doria:humbug
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Need to leave for my next call now bye
Greg Shatan:Ruggie cannot be the only guidance. It's like going to a city and told there is only one guidebook.
Tatiana Tropina:Thanks all! bye
matthew shears:thanks!
Erich Schweighofer:Bye, servus from Vienna.
rudi daniel:thank you group, appreciated. bye
Greg Shatan:Bye all!
Markus Kummer:Bye all
Bernard Turcotte:bye all
