ICANN

 

Moderator: Maryam Bakoshi

June 1, 2018

8:00 am CT

 

 

Coordinator: The recordings have started.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening everyone and welcome to the June 2018 meeting of the Cross-Community Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights. I am Collin Kurre and I am joined by my co-chair Michael Karanicolas.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Hi.

 

Collin Kurre: Today - hi. Today, as you can see in the agenda, we've got a relatively light schedule so we can if anybody wants to make any interventions off the cuff, then you're more than - you're free to do so. We are going to have a brief period for updates, perhaps talk about the GDPR but then give updates from other (unintelligible) more closely linked to the CCWP HR, do a little bit of ICANN 62 prep, and then discuss the potential of submitting a workshop proposal for the IGF revolving around ICANN or the DNS and human rights.

 

So we can go ahead and get the ball rolling with a couple of updates. I know that GDPR is right there at the top of the agenda, so if anybody has anything in particular that they want to comment on through a human rights lens related to the ongoing legislation, or litigation rather, please feel free to raise your hand and chime in. If there's nothing concrete related to human rights that anyone wants to share then we can jump over that agenda item. GDPR does anyone have any comments?

 

Okay I'm not seeing any hands so that's fine. Now as you may know we have been working on a research paper regarding the human rights impact of ongoing policy development processes. The draft paper that we have been working on is available on the ICANN human rights website, which I have linked to at the top of the chat. It is, let's see, ICANN Policies in Human Rights from April 2018, if you'd like to have a look.

 

We recently had a proposal put forth by one of our members, who unfortunately was unable to join the call today, Raphael, and Raphael's proposal that he made on the list, in case you hadn't seen it, revolved around reframing the paper or adding an additional layer to the paper that is focusing on giving meaning to the phrase respecting internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law, keeping in mind the various limitations that precede or succeed that in the bylaws.

 

So more specifically Raphael suggested doing research on the applicable human rights law or the human rights laws that could potentially be applicable to ICANN as a California non-profit, both directly, meaning within the corpus of state and federal law in California in the United States but also indirectly, which is a very interesting framing to take right now given the discussions around, yes you have it, GDPR.

 

So I - he put forth this suggestion on the list. I found it very interesting, and he kindly offered to coordinate volunteers to - who would be contributing either research, expertise or knowledge to - around this topic. To get the ball rolling, does anyone have any thoughts about this new framing that has been proposed on the list?

 

David McAuley: Collin, it's David McAuley.

 

Collin Kurre: Yes, David McAuley, come on in.

 

David McAuley: Thanks. I did read that from Raphael and, you know, salute him for his willingness to do something like that. I would just add a word of caution and that is the CCWG Accountability Work Stream 2 just worked on a framework of interpretation of the ICANN bylaw as it respects human rights. And so these questions have been wrestled with before.

 

In fact the ICANN bylaw, I think it's 27, anticipated that this would be looked at in Work Stream 2, a framework of interpretation would be drawn up. (Neils) led that effort and it wasn't the easiest thing in the world to do. So, while I'm not trying to throw a cold blanket on doing additional work in this area, I would say, you know, keep this in mind. This has been addressed already. A lot of work has been put into this and the framework of interpretation can't be displaced I don't think once it's approved by the board, which has not yet happened. Thank you.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you for that comment, David. I wish that Raphael was here to speak for himself. I don't presume to read more deeply than what he has posted into what his intentions are, but I believe that he would be looking even beyond the context of the framework of interpretation to just do a more scoping perhaps or research paper to see what laws could potentially impact ICANN's operations. And I gleaned that just from what he has posted.

 

But, as I suggested on the list, hopefully we'll be able to get Raphael in on the next meeting so that he can elaborate in greater detail what he means by that. But your word of caution has been noted. Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments from participants about the proposed new additional framing for the human rights and policy development processes paper?

 

Okay. It doesn't seem like we have any hands up. So we will maybe put that on ice and wait for Raphael to come back either on the list or in the next meeting perhaps with even a draft text to see what he wanted to do and then we can take - pick the conversation up then. I think that we can move to the next bullet point, which was updates from ongoing policy development processes.

 

I see David I know that you're involved in a couple PDPs and (Declan) as well. (Megan) I'm not sure or (unintelligible) (Andrea) I'm not sure if you guys are but does anybody want to give a brief update on the PDPs that they're involved in through the lens of potentially human rights impact? Yes, David, come on in.

 

David McAuley: Collin, it's - thanks. David McAuley speaking for the record. I'm actually a participant in the RPM PDP working group. RPM stands for Rights Protection Mechanisms, and I'd be happy to give a brief update as to what the group's doing. It's not directly related yet to - it's not directly - we're not speaking in terms of human rights elements so far but I could give an update and I'll try and keep it brief, and it can be brief for one reason.

 

The working group has been on a hiatus. We had our first meeting in three weeks this past Wednesday, and the reason for the hiatus was many of the participants were involved in ICANN's Global Domains Division Summit in Vancouver two weeks ago and then a good number of the participants were involved in the International Trademark Association meeting last week in Seattle. And so there were so many people gone that we put the work on hiatus for a couple of weeks.

 

What the group has been doing is we're seeking data. There's a data survey going out with respect to trademark claims and sunrise. These are two parts of the trademark clearinghouse operation, and the data survey is seeking - excuse me, seeking information on certain questions that the group developed for how the trademark clearinghouse has been operating basically.

 

Trademark clearinghouse was a rights protection mechanism created for the new round of gTLDs from 2012 and it's basically looking to get some experience, some direct data as to how it's been operating and whether it's been meeting the visions set out in the applicant guidebook.

 

While that survey was put together, we then turned our attention to the Uniform Rapid Suspension rights protection mechanism, which is sort of a quick - it's intended to be a quick hearing to look at cyber squatting, trademark cyber squatting, and we're wrestling with those, doing a lot of data input from Professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School. She's on - a participant and she has a team pulling together some data that's going to be helpful to us.

 

We've looked at whether this particular question, Uniform Rapid Suspension review, might be pushed into phase two of our work, which is supposed to begin in July of 2019. Part of - some members in the group felt that it would more naturally fit in that phase, which is going to look at the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy. Others feel that we should look at URS now because it's germane to the next round of gTLDs and we can at least look at the operational aspects of it now, the administration aspects of it now to make sure it works correctly.

 

URS could have a human rights impact in how domain names are rapidly looked at for violating trademark. And so there is an element that touches on it but we really haven't spoken directly to that issue yet. And so that's roughly where that group is. Thanks.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you, David. Do we have any updates from anyone else, perhaps Work Track 5 or any other related ongoing PDPs?

 

David McAuley: Collin?

 

Collin Kurre: It doesn't look like it. Yes, David?

 

David McAuley: It's David McAuley again for the record. Actually I should have mentioned I'm also a participant in Work Track 5, which is a work track under the Subsequent Procedures PDP, and we're still wrestling with city names. It's a very difficult issue how and - or how city names should be capable of registration as a domain name or part of a domain name. It's - even though it's called or, you know, the topic is city names it goes beyond that.

 

It looks at the subset of capital cities but it goes beyond that to regional names, and there are very distinct differences. There's been a huge amount of email traffic, and the most significant thing to come out of that group recently is the leaders of the group, together with staff, just yesterday put out a working document that has tried to distill all of the email of the last several weeks without repetition so that we could, you know, have a sort of a reformulate the debate so that people can understand where we are.

 

It's an intense debate. It's not clear how it's going to be resolved but there's a great deal of discussion going on in Work Track 5 about it. And so that's where Work Track 5 is. That's the end of that update. And then I'd like to come back with a question or two once the other updates - if there are any other updates that are done. Thanks.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you, David. I see we've got another hand in the queue. (Declan), come on in.

 

(Declan): Can you hear me?

 

Collin Kurre: Yes we can hear you.

 

(Declan): This is (Declan) for the record. So I will try to…

 

Collin Kurre: Actually let me correct myself. We can't hear you very well. If you could maybe get a little bit closer to the mic.

 

(Declan): Can you hear me now? Hello?

 

Collin Kurre: Yes I think that's a little bit better.

 

(Declan): Yes, okay. I'll pick up from what the previous speaker was saying. I'm also following discussions in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5, so as you suggested earlier the set of questions (unintelligible) on three critical elements like the use of geographic - the use of territory or country names as domain names and the use of city names as a capital city of the country.

 

This - the discussion has been framing on this critical element. Recently there has been suggestion from the working group members that domain name applicants should come from local communities, which has some elements of freedom of expression concerns, like people outside from the country who want to express their dissent on human rights violations in some countries so must be granted opportunity to have domain name. That's the most critical issue (unintelligible).

 

Also application of (unintelligible) group, I'm a member of that group, we are now trying to produce a technical document. So can you hear me?

 

Collin Kurre: Yes we can hear you now, (Declan).

 

(Declan): Okay. So we are now trying to produce a technical framework for the application concerns for IDN. We are still at early phase. We have tentatively developed a working document, a rough document, which is aimed at shaping the focus of the group. So these are the developments that happened so far. Thank you.

 

Collin Kurre: Great. Thanks for that update. I think we can circle back to your questions, David, unless there's any other updates. I don't see any hands. So, you can take the floor, David.

 

David McAuley: Okay. Thank you, Collin, and it's David McAuley again speaking for the record. My question stems a little bit, Collin, from a conversation that you and I had briefly in Toronto at Rights Con, and it deals with the agenda item, human rights PDP paper. And my recollection is that Vidushi put out, and I continue to thank Vidushi, she's taken the lead and the pen on trying to put together a pretty good paper, dealing with - and I think she was dealing with a number of PDPs but maybe in more detail with the Subsequent Procedures one and the RPM one.

 

And I was looking, you know, I thought we were going to perhaps maybe discuss that, but I believe that you told me in Toronto that that paper is being redone or there's a new paper coming out. And so anyway my question is with respect to the Human Rights PDP paper and especially with respect to those two working groups, Sub Pro and RPM, and I say especially because those groups are moving on.

 

And so if there were ever a time that someone wanted to raise a human rights question or comment or something like that, it seems to me that it would be better done sooner than later so that those groups are not wrong-footed late in the day. And I remember reading Vidushi's paper. I think it's a, you know, I think it's a tremendous effort. I don't remember the details right now but - so my question is where is that paper and is it being redone? I thought I heard that from you in Toronto but I might be mistaken. Thanks.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you for that question, David. So we - it's not necessarily being redone this paper, which I've just posted a link to the paper in the chat. I heard - or Raphael before he posted to the list had contacted me directly suggesting a proposed reframing, the reframing that he eventually posted more broadly to the list.

 

So when we spoke in Toronto, I was alluding to the potential of having a new overarching framing or contextualization of this PDP paper. However, you raised a really great point about the PDP is moving on and this being perhaps an opportune moment to be highlighting the potential human rights impact of especially the RPM and the subsequent procedures policy development process.

 

So perhaps a workable solution would be to divorce the two papers or kind of two different topics that we're talking about here, the one that Raphael has set forth about exploring the applicability of different human rights law to ICANN and its operation and then the human rights impact of ongoing PDPs. Do you think it would make sense to separate those two and to have two different research papers?

 

David McAuley: I think it might. I'm not as close to it as you and Vidushi are but yes that could be an approach. And again the - it was - my question/comment was just, you know, to note that those groups are in progress and Vidushi's work is also in progress but the two aren't connected. And so any way to make sense out of that, your suggestion, Raphael's, whatever it might, my concern is that I think it would be productive if there are going to be human rights comments or concerns expressed that they be done so early - as early as possible in the process, and that's pretty much it. So thanks, Collin.

 

Collin Kurre: Yes, thank you for those comments. So two responses from my end. First, I think that it might be a mischaracterization to say that the paper is necessarily Vidushi's paper because, as you said, she did a wonderful job in being the penholder for the first draft but I think that it would strengthen the document if we came together as a group if possible and collaborated, made this a more collaborative document. That would be great.

 

And the second comment was as far as raising human rights concerns earlier on in policy development processes, I completely support that idea. But I think that that might be more related to the other ongoing pocket of work which actually wasn't included on the agenda for some reason, which was developing the human rights impact assessment.

 

So during the last call we put forward a draft for a potential human rights impact assessment mechanism that could be invoked earlier - or wherever in the policy development process but ideally in early stages at least and then perhaps potentially in midway through policy development processes and then as a part of the final report as well.

 

Let's see, so I think that one of the reasons - we got some feedback from community members saying that it could potentially be premature to be exploring such compliance mechanisms before the work of Work Stream 2 has fully wrapped and the recommendations have been approved by the board. So that has been - we didn't really receive any comments from the community quite yet on that draft, but I agree that it - that invoking human rights impacts earlier in the process could - is a necessary part. But, right, I'm not sure if the human rights PDP paper is the appropriate vehicle.

 

I see that Stephanie has joined us. Stephanie, we were going over updates from some of the ongoing PDPs. I know that you are following the GDPR debate very closely. Do you have any updates that you would like to share with us with a particular view of potential human rights impact?

 

Stephanie Perrin: Hi this is Stephanie. Can you hear me?

 

Collin Kurre: Yes we can hear you.

 

Stephanie Perrin: Oh good. Stephanie Perrin for the record. Well I don't know how closely folks on this call have been following the GDPR, well there's no other word for it, mess, but basically recent events include ICANN filed a lawsuit in a German court because Tucows decided to stop collecting the admin contact information and one other, I forget which one. And the court dismissed the case very rapidly, at least by Canadian standards. We wouldn’t get an opinion like over the weekend and - because it was filed on Friday the 25th.

 

And we have the court ruling at the moment. We expect ICANN to appeal that because there would be no reason to do this other than to seek a high court judgment. And to be honest, I haven't gone through the briefs other than a quick skim well enough to understand what the implications are. My only concern about this might be that this is a very narrow intervention and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from what I've seen of it so far.

 

So there are huge issues that could be litigated with respect to the GDPR and we don't want to be doing it like every other day for each one. It'll use up all of ICANN's resources and it would certainly be very difficult for civil society, I'm speaking from a civil society perspective here, to follow and intervene in this. So that’s just that one.

 

In terms of the actual process, as soon as ICANN imposed the interim specification, which they did the week before the deadline, that started the close ticking on the one-year process for an expedited PDP. So Council is busy trying to figure out among the different options how to set up that PDP. It's probably that we don't want to repeat the mess that was the RDS group that floundered and never reached consensus.

 

However, I would have to say as someone who was on the blessed RDS faithfully, missing very few meetings, we had reached a pretty fair consensus among the parties who were actively trying to contribute to consensus on what needs to be done and, you know, what can't be done.

 

So I'm optimistic that a PDP actually could be constructed in such a way that we would succeed as long as we keep the people who don't have any skin in the game from joining and just plain disrupting things, because there was a lot of that, you know, contesting that the GDPR should be repealed and threatening to go to Congress. Well, okay, you might call that a useful strategy but it certainly doesn't help when you take up time in the GDP talking about it. So that's kind of the update. We will be on fast track once that EPDP gets set up, and that's probably enough from me. I'm happy to answer questions though.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you very much for that update, Stephanie. I think my questions would just revolve around, right, the questions that remain unanswered, like when the PDP would kick off and how we could best participate to ensure that end user rights remain in the conversation, but we will stay tuned for those questions to be answered.

 

I think I can turn it over to my co-chair Michael now to talk about ICANN 62 activities. Michael?

 

Michael Karanicolas: Hi. Thank you very much for that, Collin. I hate to say this because you've been talking for a while but I did think that you were going to be doing ICANN 62 because I won't be in Panama.

 

Collin Kurre: Oh right. Okay, no that's fine. So my main - the things that I was wondering about for ICANN 62 was how we could potentially report back as members of the CCWP or as people with human rights concerns if we see things that should be perhaps monitored, included into our research, included within the scope of CCWP HR discussions.

 

I wanted to go ahead and see if anybody had any thoughts about a useful tool. Right off the top of my head I was thinking perhaps a shared doc of some sort, a notepad where people could potentially enter things that should be on the radar might be a useful tool. Do - would you please raise your hand if you would find a tool like that useful? Okay I don't see any hands.

So the second thing that I was thinking about for ICANN 62 was organizing a kind of working lunch or just a lunch for people to come together and potentially discuss the human rights issues that are facing - that we're facing right now in this GDPR context. Would anybody be interested in joining a lunch to discuss human rights in ICANN?

 

Oh, well maybe - thank you, David. David is interested. Perhaps I should first ask who will be participating in ICANN 62 who is on the call? Is there anyone who will not be there? Okay so I saw some hands from Bruna and David and there is some interest in lunch. Great. So I will go ahead and float that idea more broadly on the list and see if we can determine a time and date for that.

 

So all right. Is there any other feedback on activities at ICANN 62 or shall we go ahead and begin talking about IGF? Yes, David?

 

David McAuley: Collin, hi. David McAuley speaking. Pardon me. Sorry about that. Just wanted to note to the group that an important session, all-day session, that could impact human rights in a number of way would be the CCWG accountability plenary session, Work Stream 2 plenary session, which is on the Sunday preceding the formal beginning of ICANN 62. Just, you know, if you're there it's probably something you might want to sit in on. Thank you.

 

Collin Kurre: Thank you for bringing that to our attention, David. Okay now I will turn it over to my co-host, or my co-chair, to tackle the next agenda item. Michael?

 

Michael Karanicolas: Hi. Thanks so much for that. So the next item that we have is for a potential IGF proposal on human rights at ICANN, or human rights in the Internet architecture. So in case anybody on the call missed it, there's been a recent announcement that IGF this year will be held in France in early November, so I guess that's kind of the heels of ICANN 63 in a similarish part of the world.

 

And there's been some discussion now, particularly on the different lists, about developing IGF proposals, and there's one that's being developed -- oh, thanks for that -- there's one that's being developed - there's proposals that are being developed by different parties on multi-stakeholderism and the GDPR.

 

And we were thinking it might be nice to put in a proposal for a session on human rights at ICANN, with a specific focus on human rights impact assessments that are being done in the institution as well as discussing the CCWP's work, along with the work of the Work Stream 2 human rights subgroup, you know, the changes to the bylaw, what's happened, how we got to this point, and challenges going forward, as well as the broader discussion on how human rights are understood in this context.

 

So Collin and I have sort of been batting around this idea of developing a session based on that. There is a skeleton of the IGF's proposal form, which is now in the chat, and I sort of wanted to take this opportunity to tee up a conversation about ideas about how this should be carried forward, well I mean do people think this is a good idea, does it sound like an interesting session. But I was mostly hoping to foster a bit of a conversation about themes that might be addressed, aspects of the conversation that we should include, thematic areas, any ideas that people have.

 

So based on that broad kind of introduction to the subject, if we were - first of all, hopefully there's no objections to us taking this forward. If anybody thinks this is a terrible idea and an absolute outrage then obviously you can say that as well, but if you're supportive of this idea, if you think it might be an interesting conversation, I'd be very much interested in hearing any inputs or thoughts about how we should do this or areas that might considered, panelists that might be done - that might be included among the session.

 

So with that kind of brief introduction, I'd like to throw it open and see if there any hands and see if there are any ideas about how we should put this together. I see Collin with a hand up. Go ahead, please.

 

Collin Kurre: Because I haven't spoken enough in this hour, I just wanted to point everyone who's in the draft to point eight of the skeleton. That's where we've got content. So I listed the things that we already put in the email, the things that we had brainstormed. And then I thought, based on (Declan)'s update, it could be potentially quite interesting to explore the work that's - the ongoing work for the incorporation - for the application of internationalized domain names. So perhaps we could put that in the - another potential topic.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Sorry, just to clarify, do you mean within this session or as a different session?

 

Collin Kurre: Within this session. I think it could be useful at this point to think about all of the different potential human rights impact that we could be talking about, and then once we've got kind of the human rights and ICANN - once we've got a bunch of subjects on the docket, then we could potentially narrow it down and find a more cohesive theme and catchy title.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Right. Well yes. If anybody has ideas for catchier titles that would also be enormously appreciated. So if I understand you correctly, I think what you're talking about is kind of gaming this out - the idea of these HRIAs and grounding it in maybe a specific policymaking process that are taking place and sort of - and encouraging participants to discuss human rights impact in that context. Do I have you correctly?

 

Collin Kurre: Actually I was talking about maybe rather than veering in exclusively on human rights impact assessments in the ICANN context we could potentially at this stage at - or, you know, for the next five minutes, just put a bunch of - have kind of a brainstorming session to talk about the different topics that could be incorporated within a broader discussion on ICANN and human rights or assessing the human rights impact of ICANN.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Okay great. I see David's hand up. David, please go ahead.

 

David McAuley: Thanks, Michael. It's David McAuley speaking for the record. It's really a process question. I'm not as familiar with IGF as I am ICANN matters. And so my question is, I apologize first for not having paid too much attention on the list to an IGF proposal from this group, but I - in doing it, my question is when do IGF proposals have to be submitted so that we can understand, you know, what level of effort we're going to need and what time within which to get this done? I think I see from Stephanie it's June 5. Okay so that's not much time. Thank you very much. That was my question.

 

Michael Karanicolas: I think it's actually June 6 at midnight UT - not UTC, midnight European Time. Anyway, June 6 in the evening is I think the time. So we don't have a lot of time to develop this but it's also not - yes it's pressing but we've got a little bit of time. And I see a comment…

 

Collin Kurre: And I just wanted to say…

 

Michael Karanicolas: Sorry, go on.

 

Collin Kurre: Yes we've got a comment from Bruna in the chat. Apparently her mic isn't working. I think she was agreeing with you, Michael, and she was saying, "I agree and was going to suggest something similar. Maybe a workshop on human rights impact assessments and ways of inserting human rights discussions in these different fora or targeting it in the already set discussions."

 

And then Stephanie has added, "One might be a human rights checklist." Well that's pretty - those a great ideas and those happen to be ideas that we're kind of acting on a little bit in our CCWP already with our proposed models for HRIAs. So I definitely support those ideas.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Yes, it definitely would be an excellent opportunity I think to foster a discussion to sort of further develop these ideas that we already sort of been batting around ourselves in the working - in the CCWP and to sort of kind of advance our conceptual understanding of it.

 

So still - does anybody else want to chime in? If not we have some very good kind of embryonic ideas. What I would suggest is that we take it the list and work to collaborate on a proposal. Are there any volunteers who would like to be involved in this? Collin, would you like to be involved in this?

 

Collin Kurre: Sure, I'll be involved in that. But I also wanted to say would anybody else be keen to speak on these issues, anyone in the room would they be willing to perhaps join, are they planning to attend IGF and would like to be considered as a panelist for such a session? Okay great.

 

So I guess the next question would be what would be the appropriate body from which to submit a proposal if it should be - or if it could be the CCWP, if it would need to be the NCSG or even potentially a different ICANN body? Or. I noticed that this year the IGF proposal requirements are lengthy and numerous and they're very much keen on diversity and looking at different I think there were six or seven different types of diversity that we will be - that session proposals would be judged against.

 

So it might be good to consider that when we're thinking about who should be the main proposer, the organizing team, and then the organization and the country where the organization is based. Does anyone have any thoughts about what the submitting organization should be for such a proposal? Yes, David, come on in.

 

David McAuley: Thanks, Collin. I think my hand was after Michael's.

 

Collin Kurre: Oh sorry. Michael's in a different pane for me. Go ahead, Michael.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Well I did want to say that, you know, I think that it would be - there's been a lot of discussion on the NCUC list of submitting a proposal and I think that there's a lot of energy and I think that there would be a lot of eagerness to put that.

 

You know, you've discussed diversity of different proposals. NCSG is definitely submitting one already on multi-stakeholderism. I think Stephanie is always developing one, which is (unintelligible) NCUC on the GDPR. So I think that there's been a lot of eagerness to get something going on in the NCUC list and I think it would be good to submit it through that organization.

 

That said, obviously we're going to be looking at something that is - oh third party accreditation standards. My mistake. Sorry, Stephanie. Stephanie's proposal was on third party accreditation standards. Anyway, I think that it would be a lot of enthusiasm would be NCUC to put something like that together and I also think that, you know, even if was put in through the NCUC, it would obviously be presented in a very multi-stakeholder fashion. You know, they're looking for diversity in the proposals.

 

We wouldn't want this to just be a civil society joint. We would want to have panelists and opinions brought in, both including ICANN staff and including private sector folks. So that's my kind of humble pitch for doing it as an NCUC joint, though with welcome contributions from people from all sides.

 

Collin Kurre: So I had asked a bit of a procedural question in the chat that might be relevant because looking at the proposal form, we have to list for example organization and then country where organization is based. This might be a silly question but in which country is the NCUC based? Would that be California? Would that be United States?

 

Or would it be perhaps more beneficial - I know that a lot of us have institutional affiliations as well as being affiliated, would it be worth exploring submitting those through our respective affiliations or is NCUC a sufficient organization to show these fields?

 

Michael Karanicolas: I think NC - Bruna maybe can correct me if I'm wrong, I think NCUC is global. I'm not sure. If we have a geographic basis, we would be in the United States but that I think we can just say we're a global organization, and particularly if we look at, you know, the fact that we have our RPC is geographically balanced, we have our representatives from Africa, our representatives from Asia, South America, North America, Europe, so I do think that it would be a global proposal from a global organization would be the way I that I would see that being done.

 

Collin Kurre: Okay. As we say these things, I'm going ahead and tentatively penciling things into this draft, which I will subsequently share on the list for the comment on the CCWP list and the NCUC list.

 

Michael Karanicolas: Great. That sounds good to me. Now I think that is the final item on the agenda. Does anybody have anything else that they want to add either on this issue or I guess an AOB for anything else we want to bring up on this call?

 

Collin Kurre: Sure. I've got some other business that I could potentially share from Rights Con. I know that several of us were at Rights Con and there were a couple sessions on ICANN there which definitely touched on human rights in the context of GDPR. Stephanie was on one of the panels that I found particularly informative. I believe that it was made available online as well, at least a recording of it. So perhaps Stephanie if you have that on hand and would like to share, that would be great.

 

But other than that, I did a little bit of a talking to either people in the human rights field or other people associated with the DNS space seeking feedback on our human rights impact assessment model. And we got some pretty - well it was - the feedback was mixed.

 

Some people thought it was going to be premature, as I mentioned earlier in the call, but overall there was a really positive response to the initiative taken by the CCWP to kind of begin developing some sort of compliance mechanism and then to begin incorporating human rights and specifically privacy and freedom of expression into PDPs as a means of potentially, you know, preempting further problems down the line in PDPs, such as conflicts with international human rights law or national legislation designed to protect user privacy such as GDPR.

 

So I just wanted to share that we had some positive feedback on that at Rights Con. Yes, David, would you like to speak?

 

David McAuley: Collin, David speaking again. I just thought of something I heard at Rights Con that might be worth mentioning to the group and that is a session on the EU copyright directive that's coming down the tracks. I don't know much about it myself but what I heard at the session had some elements of concern, including the idea of contents filtering.

 

So as I said, I don't know much about it but I do think that keeping eyes out for things relating to the EU copyright directive would be worthwhile for this group. It apparently is something that may be voted on by the EU Parliament as early as late June. Sorry I don't have more details but I just would flag it as something to be aware of. Thank you.

 

Collin Kurre: Excellent. That's something that we'll definitely look into. Perhaps we can make a blog post about it on our CCWP website. On that note, has anybody else seen anything, any recent developments outside of GDPR that they find could be potentially problematic for human rights in ICANN?

 

We had another suggestion from Bruna, which is the ICU (planning pot), the (unintelligible) meeting, which will be held if I'm not mistaken at the end of October. So I think that the CCWG on Internet Governance is also watching that but it could be good to potentially look for synergy between our two groups in tracking and monitoring those different Internet governance fora.

 

And then we've got Resolution 102 on Internet Resources might be reviewed in the context of the (planning pot). Thank you, Bruna for flagging those. I've added those to the notes. All right, do we have any other other business? From our participants?  I don't see any hands so I think that we can go ahead and call this meeting to a close. Thank you everyone for joining us and we'll follow up on the list. See you in Panama or during our next call, which will be held in July. Thank you.

 

Woman: Thank you.

 

 

END