Sub-group Members: Andreea Brambilla, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Daniel Appelman, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Harold Arcos, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Niels ten Oever, Rachel Pollack, Rudi Daniel, Tatiana Tropina   (16)

Observers/Guests:  Berry Cobb, Beth Bacon, Irene Borissova, Isabel Rutherfurd, Lee Hibbard, Taylor Bentley   (6)

Staff: Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Nathalie Vergnolle


** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to **




1. Administrivia | Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc.

2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI

       1st reading continued

       f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law’

        g. ‘‘This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’

        2nd reading

               a.‘within the scope of its Mission’

               b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week)

               c. ‘respecting’

               d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’

               e. ‘as required by applicable law’

3. AOB


1. Administrivia | Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc.

  • No audio only.
  • No SOI updates
  • No updates to agenda
  • Legal questions now submitted to ICANN Legal

ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of them

2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI

       1st reading continued

       f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law’

    • Avri: The interpretation here seems stronger than the initial text.
    • Greg: I don't see that as stronger.
    • Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): this sentence is about "obligations" - it does not prevent ICANN from "taking HR into account" beyond that
    • Group approves this interpretation.

        g. ‘‘This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’

  • Kavouss: second part ("or coerce third parties" ) is not quite clear - could we define the language being used ("third parties": who are these)? 
  • David: agrees, there appears to be a disconnect between the 1st and 2nd part
  • Greg: implicitely refers back to Ruggie's principle
  • Tatiana Tropina: so I don't think anyone argues about concepts but just about the clarity of this text 
  • David: I think the problem starts with the use of the word "impose"
  • Kavouss: "of those third parties" also needs to be clarified
  • Avri: does it mean that there should be compliance of contracted parties?
  • Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "without prejudice to what is stated elsewhere"?
  • Niels ten Oever: Maybe this: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend 
    the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to take enforcement action to any other party or ask other parties to take enforcement action.
  • ACTION (Drafting team)  come up with new proposal for 2nd reading.

        2nd reading

  • Kavouss: suggest we wait till next meeting before we do the 2nd reading.
  • Niels: 1st reading was done during last meeting, there was time between the 2 readings.

               a.‘within the scope of its Mission’

  • agreement from the group

               b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week)

  • Kavouss: replace "described" by "stipulated"
  • Greg: we don't nee "legal" before "hierarchy" in the last paragraph
  • Jorge: hierarchy could be moral, pragmatical etc. This is a legal test, so it should be a "legal hierarchy",
  • Greg: I disagree that it's a legal balancing test. 
  • Tatiana: I agree, it's not a legal test, and there is no hierarchy between core values.
  • Jorge: why are we reopening this discussion? if so, there are other I could reopen too.
  • Tatiana:  We could say that there is no pre-existing hierarchy, or no predetermined hierarchy.
  • Kavouss Arasteh: Retention or otherwise of term"Legal" does not create any problem .However, it retention may give the impression that there are other types of 
    hierarchy than legal,thus I suggest to remove it

ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal


  • Not discussed

               d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’

  • Not discussed

               e. ‘as required by applicable law’

  • Not discussed

3. AOB

Action Items

  • ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of themAction Items

  • ACTION (Drafting team)  come up with new proposal for 2nd reading.

  • ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

 Yvette Guigneaux:Welcome all to the Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #13 | Tuesday, 22 November @ 19:00 UTC!

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Yevette

  Tatiana Tropina:Hi all

  Markus Kummer:Hi everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all

  David McAuley (RySG):Hi all

  David McAuley (RySG):Brenda, Nathalie, I am 4154

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all, I'm the swiss number

  Brenda Brewer:Thank you David!

  Tatiana Tropina:where is the chair? :-)

  Tatiana Tropina:aha here he is.

  Niels ten Oever:Here I am

  Tatiana Tropina:O/

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):3 minutes!!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):WIsh I had made a 3 minute egg.

  Tatiana Tropina:Anne :-D

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Niels - Greg also a member

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Could we have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of them?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thx!

  Tatiana Tropina:can we have scroll control? Thanks a million :)

  Tatiana Tropina:Matthew is not here.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Tatiana!

  Greg Shatan:I will bow to Tatiana to kick it off.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thx, Tatiana for taking the floor :)

  avri doria:please scroll up a line.

  avri doria:or rather down

  Tatiana Tropina:or please give up the scroll control :)

  avri doria:thanks.  it ignores what is said in the second sentence.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):this sentence is about "obligations" - it does not prevent ICANN from "taking HR into account" beyond that

  avri doria:but the interpretation drops that.

  Tatiana Tropina:but we can create obligations under the core value anyway

  Tatiana Tropina:within the mission only

  avri doria:of course withint the mission.  i am nor worried about mission but applicable law.

  avri doria:when applicable law is too narrow, while not a obligation perhaps still something that should/could be done.

  avri doria:and the interpretations seems to leave this out.

  Tatiana Tropina:yes I would like to hear Avri again because I am not sure am getting the concern

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):We have to take all FoI elements together... in a systematic manner...

  Greg Shatan:What text are you looking at, Avri?

  Greg Shatan:The Bylaw is only 3 sentences.  I am confused.

  Tatiana Tropina:I see only one sentence in the interpretation of this para

  Tatiana Tropina:I am still lost :(

  David McAuley (RySG):OK thanks - it was a little confusing

  Tatiana Tropina:aaahhhh

  Greg Shatan:I think we need a "header row" on the chart...

  Tatiana Tropina:thanks :-)

  avri doria:no what i am worried about does seem to be included in the edefinition of applicable law.  maybe.

  Tatiana Tropina:ok we are all happy. That makes the pen-holders happy too.

  avri doria:i wont go so far as to say happy.

  avri doria:so we are comfortable with the contract allowing for HR to be abridged without any need for respect?

  avri doria:by a contractee?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):The prohibition to "enforce" does not prevent ICANN from reasonably using its leverage with contracted parties... my view...

  avri doria:is complaince and enforcement?

  avri doria:... an enforcement

  Tatiana Tropina:I have difficulties with the audio too

  Tatiana Tropina:I got it

  Tatiana Tropina:can respond

  Tatiana Tropina:or may be we can let native speakers speak.

  Tatiana Tropina:I actually agree with Kavouss' concern - it might be rephrased

  Greg Shatan:I could not understand what was said.

  Tatiana Tropina:yes, yes. Probably we were all tired when drafting this last part :D

  Tatiana Tropina:it's ok conceptually may be needs a bit of fine tuning

  Tatiana Tropina:so I don't think anyone argues about concepts but just about the clarity of this text

  Tatiana Tropina:we can re-word

  Tatiana Tropina:party crawling, 1st, 2nd, 3rd...

  David McAuley (RySG):Kavouss's connection a bit muffled

  Tatiana Tropina:Yes, hard to listen

  Niels ten Oever:Suggestion by David McAuley: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to take enforcement action or ask others to take enforcement action.

  Tatiana Tropina:Thanks david we will work on this

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina:sorry for speaking for the whole team, hope Greg and Jorge don't mind

  Greg Shatan:We used "other parties" in the Bylaw, instead of "third parties."

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):parties other to ICANN, right?

  Niels ten Oever:Maybe this: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to take enforcement action to any other party or ask other parties to take enforcement action.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):"without prejudice to what is stated elsewhere"?

  Tatiana Tropina:Jorge, your suggestion addresses Avri's concern?

  avri doria:seems to.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):tries to... in line with what Greg explained...

  Greg Shatan:ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Kavouss regarding timing of second reading.

  Greg Shatan:Most of the first reading took place on the prior call.

  Tatiana Tropina:I inserted Jorge's chat to the comment on the doc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Neils

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):THanks for clarifying Niels as to only doing part of second reading.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):let's do the second reading of the first part... this is just the subgroup draft - still many opportunities to make comments I guess

  Kavouss Arasteh: INCLINESD

  Kavouss Arasteh:INCLINED

  Greg Shatan:We won't have time for the second reading of the second part due to the second reading of the first part, but we should consider the references to the third party when we have the second reading of the second part.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland)::D

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I cannot read these texts any more, without my eyes glazing over... others have to try to find the bugs...

  David McAuley (RySG):I second what Greg said, I think

  Niels ten Oever:Me too

  Tatiana Tropina:Jorge, I feel your pain - the same here

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):;)

  Tatiana Tropina::-) it was quite a painful way to have this text :D

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):no gain without pain, right?

  Tatiana Tropina:Jorge, seems so! We proved this again.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):this is a legal balancing test - so "legal2 hierarchy is fair to say - we don't need to go into general considerations on whether some core values are higher than others... we don't need that discussion

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec +1

  Kavouss Arasteh:Delete legal

  Greg Shatan:It is a governance balancing test.

  Tatiana Tropina:shall we say "legal or other hierarchy" ?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think a second reading is for the very purpose of discussing whethre the first instincts are correct or incorrect.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Retention or otherwise of term"Lgal" does not create any problem .However, it retention may give the impression that there are other types of hierarchy than legal,thus I suggest to remove it

  Kavouss Arasteh:We do not need to rephrase it . Jorge is kindly requested to agree with others

  Tatiana Tropina:Jorge, will it suit you?

  Tatiana Tropina:will it address your concern?

  Tatiana Tropina:because pre-determined will mean that we can determin it on case by case basis as you say

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with "no predetermined hierarchy"

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):what is the problem with "legal" - if saying that there is no "legal" hierarchy is what gives us legal certainty?

  Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge, if you say that it means there are other hierarchy

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):we would need to reword the sentence and take out hierarchy too

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jorge - it may suggest there is some other type of hierarchy that is not named.

  Greg Shatan:We are trying to create clarity and consistency of intepretation, NOT merely "legal certainty."

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):legal clarity, consistency and clarity - that is all this is about

  Tatiana Tropina:I mean, what Jorge want can be addressed with other word.

  Tatiana Tropina:because legal means is that there no pre-established hierarchy :)

  Greg Shatan:There is no reason to parse between "legal" and some other thing.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ JOrge - would you be okay with Tatiana's suggestion re "legal or other hierarchy"?

  Kavouss Arasteh:put legal in yelow

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):this is being brought up on second reading -  that is very unfortunate

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I think we will need to look at other parts

  Greg Shatan:I brought this up on the first reading as well, but it didn't really get discussed then.  But there was also no objection when I suggested it should be taken out then, either.

  Kavouss Arasteh:no

  Tatiana Tropina:we have no time

  Greg Shatan:How convenient.  :-)

  Tatiana Tropina:Greg :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2::-)

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I have brought up other issues without pushing them, but can take them up again

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jorge - I do think that if there is something you need to raise in second reading, you should do so.  That is the purpose.

  David McAuley (RySG):thanks all, good bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Talk more next week then  ... Bye for now...

  Kavouss Arasteh:Bye

  David McAuley (RySG):thanks drafting team

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you everyone - especially the drafting team and Niels.

  Tatiana Tropina:thanks all ! bye

  Markus Kummer:Bye all - great work

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

  • No labels