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 acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
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
Documents
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
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.
