Sub-group members:   Andreea Brambilla, Andrew Mack, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Isabel Rutherfurd, Janet Shih Hajek, John Laprise, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Paul McGrady, Robin Gross, Rudi Daniel, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (21)

Observers and guests:  Beth Bacon, Wafa Dahmani   (2)

Staff:  Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry, Nathalie Vergnolle   (5)

Apologies:  Anne Aikman-Scalese

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




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

2. The way forward vis a vis Public Comment of FoI

3. High level overview of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team

4. AOB

 Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat):

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

No audio only participants.

No SOI updates.

No addition to agenda

2. The way forward vis a vis Public Comment of FoI

Drafting team has been considering the bullets from annex 12. Their conclusion is that there is still work to be done by the subgroup, and recommendation made to hold off the public comment on the FoI, till a single document is produced that would consider all the bullets of annex 12.

Subgroup consensus to proceed per this recommendation. 

This update will be presented at the CCWG plenary tomorrow.

3. High level overview of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team

- Preamble

Kavouss: I think we should have only 1 document, not 2 separate documents.

Tatiana: drafting team agrees that there should be only 1 document. The document presented is only a working document to discuss how we plan to address all the bullet points. All additions coming out of this exercise will be integrated in the FoI document.

- Discussed bullet #1 - "Consider wich specific HR conventions ... "

Drafting team will include feedback received in document for futher review / discussion

- Discussed bullet # 2 - "Policies and frameworks..."

Discussed the necessity to distinguish between ICANN org and ICANN community

Kavouss: I disagree to make a distinction between ICANN org and ICANN community

This topic needs to be further discussed

- bullet # 3 - "Consistent with ICANN's existing processes..."

Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team

- bullet #4 - Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this bylaw..."

Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team

- bullet #5 - Consider what effect, if any, this bylaw will have..."

Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team

Kavouss: we need to further discuss this document, suggests to not make distinctions between groups.

4. AOB

The drafting team will continue to work on this document based on the inputs received today. 

Subgroup will continue reviewing this document in the next meeting of the subgroup.

Next subgroup meeting: Tuesday 15 Feb @19:00 UTC

Action items


Chat from

Brenda Brewer: (2/7/2017 12:25) Good day all and welcom to Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #19 on 7 February 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (12:32) Hi Brenda

  Brenda Brewer: (12:33) Hi Kavouss!

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:59) i am 4154

  Brenda Brewer: (12:59) Hi and thank you, David!

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:59) TY Brenda

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:00) greetings all

  Markus Kummer: (13:00) Hi all

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:01) Hi everyone

  matthew shears: (13:04) hi

  avri doria: (13:05) hi, single review  there are already far too many separate things under review.

  John Laprise: (13:05) +1 Avri

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:06) Then we should wait untill we include evry thing in a single doc. for public comment

  avri doria: (13:07) yes to retraction

  avri doria: (13:07) yes to a single doc

  matthew shears: (13:07) agree - it is better that there be one doc - multiple docs will confuse

  Greg Shatan: (13:08) +1 single doc.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:08) as that is what the DT is proposing  then Yes

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:08) agree

  Andrew Mack: (13:08) fine

  Niels ten Oever: (13:09)

  Paul McGrady: (13:10) Hi all.  Sorry to be tardy.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:11) I will explain

  Greg Shatan: (13:12) Tardy was the word the teachers used in grade school when we were late....

  avri doria: (13:12) i think he was just indicating he was late and apologizing.  not to put words in Paul

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:12) I will explain :-)

  Paul McGrady: (13:13) @Greg - they still use it!

  avri doria: (13:13) .. in Paul's mouth.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:13) I will address Kavouss's concerns

  Niels ten Oever: (13:13) Ah sorry, not my mother tongue!

  Paul McGrady: (13:13) @Avri - yes, thanks!  I was just try to apologize for joining the call 10 minutes late.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:13) Let me explain :)

  Andrew Mack: (13:14) didn't we already agree on one doc?

  matthew shears: (13:14) exactly Niels

  Andrew Mack: (13:14) I agree, one doc

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:14) that is what I understood to be the case proposed

  matthew shears: (13:15) they are separate docs simply for ease of working  - this is a draft

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:15) understand that thanks @Matthew

  avri doria: (13:20) uf that is the interprettation then why are we bothering with a HR bylaw?

  Rudi Daniel: (13:20) Apol. for late meeting entry...

  avri doria: (13:20) if HR does not apply then HR does not apply

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:21) need to clarify

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:21) ouch

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) the noise?

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:21)  HUM

  avri doria: (13:21) in other words our FoI says there is not need to worry about human rights and the bylaw is a bi of null text.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:21) headphones ouch

  Greg Shatan: (13:21) Well, that was disconcerting.

  Paul McGrady: (13:22) Sounds like someone is hoovering the rug.

  avri doria: (13:22) that is the way it continues to read to me.  

  avri doria: (13:22) nice round about wording, but folks no need to worry about HR.

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) @Avri, I don't think that's what we're saying, which is why I'm poking at it.

  avri doria: (13:23) it is how i read it. and one of the reasons i am very pessimistic about the work of the subteam

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:23) Avri, Greg, exactly, but as it is it can be interpreted as Avri interprets it but this is neother our intent nor the bylaw intent

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:23) sorry for typos

  Greg Shatan: (13:23) "no direct application" and "no use" are not synonymous.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:23) Agree, Greg

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) and we have to make it clear

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) there is also a direct aplciation of the bylaw

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) oh sorry applicable law

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:24) *old hand*

  Niels ten Oever: (13:24) Exactly

  avri doria: (13:24) wel we already have to obey the law, the bylaw adds notihing to the preposition.

  Niels ten Oever: (13:24) No direct application is different from no use, or not use for intepretation.

  Brenda Brewer: (13:25) If phone number is listed in attendee pod, please identify name for attendance purposes.  Thank you!

  avri doria: (13:25) if ICANN is not accepting any obligation to do anything about HR, get rid of the bylaw/

  Paul McGrady: (13:25) Not binding, but often instructive within ICANN's obligations to respect human rights specifically spelled out under applicable law and balanced with the need for predictablity in the implementation of policy.

  avri doria: (13:27) is instructive the same as guidance?

  avri doria: (13:27) there has to be some acceptance of obligation or the words are null.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) Paul, thanks, I inserted your comment into the working doc

  Greg Shatan: (13:28) We have defined the donut as a hole.

  avri doria: (13:28) the bylaw seem little more that a figleaf.

  Paul McGrady: (13:28) @Avri - guidance yes, but the kind of guidance someone would get from a respected professor or clergy member.  In other words, guidance which should be taken very seriously - not just a box that needs a perfunctory checkmark.

  avri doria: (13:29) and to what degree can an IRP base it decsions on a HR basis?

  Paul McGrady: (13:30) @Avri - agree that the IRP experts have a harder job since ICANN is a private organization rather than a State-run institution now.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) David, *this* is excellent, I worte on the doc so we don't forget

  John Laprise: (13:30) +1 to hybrid language

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) *wrote

  avri doria: (13:30) + on langauge that is meaningful and indicates an obligation on ICANN

  matthew shears: (13:31) I have no mic at the moment

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:33) Matt shall we start a crowdfunding campaign to get you are mic? :D

  matthew shears: (13:33) just working through techissues

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:33) sorry :-) was attempt to joke

  avri doria: (13:34) the deadpan repsonse if a counter joke

  Andrew Mack: (13:38) HR regarding HR?

  avri doria: (13:39) yes, recenlty ICANN has been clearly dirempted into ICANN organization and ICANN community

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:40) Agree w/Greg about where our group stops and others pick up

  avri doria: (13:41) Greg, are you arguing that ICANN the community has nothing to say about ICANN the organization when it is doing operational stuff?

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:42) did I make it worse?

  Greg Shatan: (13:42) No, not saying we have nothing to say.  But our involvement is different than when we are dealing with gTLD policy, for example.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) absolutely but a simple recognition that community has to implement this core value in policy making should be a must

  Greg Shatan: (13:43) Not sure where, but we probably do want to clarify the community's role in ICANN operational stuff .  Staff Accountability WG?

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) We have to be clear that they apply through - operations, policy making

  Greg Shatan: (13:44) It applies to all aspects of ICANN, But we can't confuse who the primary actor is at any given point.

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:45) Maybe all we need up front, as the new bylaw takes effect, is a general policy like the standards of conduct that instructs all involved in community to take account of new bylaw and operate under it

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) Greg, I honetly don't think that this bylaw was directed to operations. ICANN will obey the law anyway. It's policy that is the primary concern

  matthew shears: (13:45) I see it more as understanding the appication of HR rights for operational aspects of ICANN the org may be different than the way we apply HR in a PDP

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) Darfting team seems to get lost :D

  Paul McGrady: (13:46) Aren't we glad we didn't just send this in last week with a note that said we are done?  :)

  matthew shears: (13:46) Tatiana - nah, we're having a useful discussion

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:46) Paul I am actually happy as I was furiously fighting for *not* sending this document

  Rudi Daniel: (13:46) +1..icann and icann community...that is.very clear I think.

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:46) Why GNSOdoes not want that, in developing policies, no attention to be made to HR,

  Andrew Mack: (13:47) rules governing ICANN the organization should be clear per the law.  I think the challenge is in explaining how we engage the community in its different iterations outside actions taken by ICANN the legally constituted entity

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:47) these two rows are almost one anyway

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:48) Does it mean that a given policy may be developed to totally ignor HR. From when GNSO has made such provclamation of total indepemnce from ICANN

  Greg Shatan: (13:48) Not at all.

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:48) GSNO MUST abide the respect to HR

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:49) The seconf of these two rows assumes the answer to the first

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:49) and ignores "if any"

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:50) wHEN WE SAY ,what ICANN policy ...,it means that every and all ICANN part MUST implement that..

  Niels ten Oever: (13:50) @Kavouss - that is exactly what is said - question is how

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:51) The more I hear about GNSO, the more I have doubt about the way that group function

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:53) I think we might give those as examples but not really as an obligation

  matthew shears: (13:53) agree

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:54) An ICANN principle of subsidiarity seems appropriate

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:57) Thank you Greg and Tatiana for walking us through doc

  Andrew Mack: (13:57) +1.  thanks

  matthew shears: (13:57) great job

  Greg Shatan: (13:57) Overview does not equal review.

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) Thanks you all for your comments and to David and Matt for working on this (and Anne)

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:58) As we work on these docs it is worth noting that the intro to Para 24 of Annex 12 (where these considerations appear) says: to ensure that adding the proposed HR bylaw does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s mission or scope an FOI should be constructed considering these points.

  Paul McGrady: (13:59) Excellent call!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:59) thanks everyone

  Greg Shatan: (13:59) Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees have different roles.  They need to be distinguished.

  David McAuley (RySG) 2: (13:59) Thanks all, let's go for 20

  avri doria: (13:59) ie. there is no difference among the roles and repsonsiblities of SOs and ACs? is that the point being made?

  KAVOUSS Arasteh: (13:59) NOT A GOOD CALL

  Rudi Daniel: (13:59) thank you all

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:59) bye all

  Markus Kummer: (13:59) Bye all

  matthew shears: (13:59) thanks

  Tatiana Tropina: (13:59) thanks! Bye

  avri doria: (13:59) bye

  Greg Shatan: (13:59) Bye all and thanks.  Good call.

  • No labels