Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Avri Doria, Bastiaan Goslings, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris LaHatte, Daniel Appelman, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Harold Arcos, Herb Waye, John Laprise, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Niels ten Oever, Nigel Robers, Paul McGrady, Ron da Silva, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (22)

Observers/Guests:  Beth Bacon, Lee Hibbard, Taylor Bentley

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry, Yvette Guigneaux

Apologies:  /

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

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

     a. within the scope of its Mission

     b. within the scope of other Core Values

     c. respecting

     d. internationally recognized human rights

     e. as required by applicable law

3. AOB

Notes

Human Rights Meeting #10 (18 October @ 19:00 UTC)

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

21 participants at beginning of call.

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

Niels ten Oever: Nothing to report from attendees. No changes to the agenda. I have produced a draft update report for the CCWG and have distributed to this group for comments.

David McAuley: Ruggie 13A we are not of one mind of what “address” means.

Niels ten Oever: was not trying to present it as such. If you have edits please propose them. Also anyone if welcome to propose edits.

Kavous Arasteh: Would kindly ask English speakers to speak slowly so non-English speakers can properly understand those comments.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): good point from Kavouss - especially late at night it is sometimes difficult to follow native speakers :-)

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

a.     within the scope of its Mission

Greg Shatan: We have simply imported the relevant parts of the mission as we did not believe there was a need for additional interpretation as this is essentially self-explanatory.

Tatiana Tropina: Support GS.

Jorge Cancio: Support and remind all it is critical that we are bound by the mission.

Kavous Arasteh: While nothing wrong with that quotation, I wonder whether we need that as it is not any interpretation?

Brett Schaefer: After reading through the document, I think it would be extremely helpful if we could delete parts of the text that everyone has moved on from and provide a summary of comments/arguments with attribution. The current document has too much comment repletion and edited text to be readily accessible.

Tatiana Tropina: Brett, I agree. Four columns and old text is really confusing. We can create a cleaner clone and save this one for the record.

John Laprise: +1

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Agree with Brett that the text is still difficult. Rapporteur and/or staff could do a bit more of cleaning. 

Tatiana Tropina: We may not need to have the Bylaws text in the document (– we could consider simply inserting text that states that every case wrt Human Rights consideration vs ICANN activities and policy making has to be checked or tested for mission limitations.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): cleaner version would be appreciated  yes please  links to the bylaw secions  makes sense, but this doc is early version   so I thank you all for this

Tatiana Tropina: agree.

Kavouss Arasteh: (poor audio) whenever we quote bylaws, mission etc. in left hand column – on the right hand side if there is no interpretation is required we simply insert this “no interpretation required”.

Tatiana Tropina: We will certainly look at that. Thanks Kavouss.

b.    within the scope of other Core Values

Greg Shatan: In contrast to the mission limitation it was felt that the Core Values statement did require interpretation. There is text about how to use the balancing test/guide. This was not agreed by all in the drafting team. Core values are more complex than the mission. We then quote the remaining Core Values. So this is a framework of interpretation. We can look at not quoting these once we complete the document given that at that point links may be sufficient. 

Tatiana Tropina: I strongly support Greg's position. The core values are defined in the bylaws and it's hard to say that they are not what they are.

Nigel Roberts: Have a successful meeting. I have to leave now.

Jorge Cancio: There is common ground with GS here. I have been asking this group to request from ICANN legal how they intend to manage the balancing test for this Core Value. It would be important to have that response for several reasons – mainly that the framework of interpretation must consider all the Core Values as well as the Mission. As such before making any interpretation of the HR Core Value we need to have the opinion from ICANN Legal and how they propose to help the Board apply this. This being said there were some points I could not agree with GS given the text seemed to diminish the HR Core Value. Another point at issue – there is no hierarchy of Core Values and saying they are all equal may be premature. However, agree that a Core Value is different than a commitment and needs a balancing test.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was a response from ICANN legal.  It arrived just prior to one of our calls There was specific language from ICANN Legal as to this ByLaw.

Karen Mulberry: This was sent by ICANN Legal on 20 Sept in response to a HR request. Dear HR-Subgroup members,I understand that the question posed was "'What is the rationale for the addition of 'core values' to the ICANN bylaws, and what are its legal and non-legal implications in your opinion, especially for the human rights bylaw?”The Core Values have historically been part of the ICANN Bylaws, introduced after the ICANN evolution and reform effort in 2002, https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-15dec02-en.htm.  From 2002 through the Bylaws as they exist today, the Core Values remained unchanged, with the following as guidance for the application of Core Values: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors. the statement - With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed.  Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments.  The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other.The inclusion of the Human Rights commitment as a Core Value, which was expressly required in Annex 6 of the WS1 report, assures that it is an item that is considered while ICANN is performing its Mission.  The implication of this is strong, particularly where the FOI considers how to guide the interpretation of this obligation.  Of course, there are already legal obligations that are tethered to human rights obligations (for example, observing laws against human trafficking) that ICANN is already following. Given the long-standing nature of the Core Values section of the ICANN Bylaw

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with balancing test.  The balancing also needs to be consistent with ICANN existing processes.  So, for example, there is a balancing that goes on with respect to PDP work. 

Tatiana Tropina: I support GS position. When I look at the ICANN Legal reply – I strongly disagree that some Core Values are more important than others. I have no issue with asking ICANN Legal for more information but it should not be the same question. We should be seeking guidance on the application of these Core Values. Core Values are not the same as Commitments and the interpretation of Core Values will require some flexibility which will depend on many factors which may be active at the time there is a requirement to interpret. To me Core Values look to be rather self-explanatory the only thing that is needed is some guidance wrt their application.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): To sum up - I feel we have common ground on what it means that the Human Rights is a core value here - but the devil is in the details and some rather absolute characterizations of the HR Core Value. 

Kavous Arasteh: Do agree there is a difference between Core Values. Do not agree we should seek views of legal but we should not seek advice, views yes, but not advice. Should not state that the Core Values cannot be applied consistently.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): and we need to have clarity on the general relationship between commitments and core values, a question that goes beyond the Human Rights Core Value - and a consistent approach would surely be needed for all core values and commitments, not just the Human Rights one

Greg Shatan: I agree in part with KA, There is no hierarchy in the Core Values and they have to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

Kavous Arasteh: (audio issues). Just take out the square brackets.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: glad we are progressing well. I completely agree with the Mission and Core Values text and support what GS has said.

Greg Shatan: I think it's important to see the Core Values in the larger context, especially since Commitments and Core Values are subparts of the same section.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree, Greg. But this is not specific to the HR FoI... but a general question about core values and commitments.

Brett Schaefer: Just to clarify, the balancing is between the different Core Values only? It is clear and agreed that the Core Values are secondary to Commitments and can under no circumstances violate the Mission? I ask because it is not clear that that is the case based on the reading and discussion 

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I think that is the case, Brett

Brett Schaefer: I am not sure how helpful the ICANN legal contribution (higher in the chat) is considering this statement: "Because they [core values] are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors"

Avri Doria: I have trouble understanding how any core principle can trump human rights. but maybe in time i can understand something like that. stranger things have happened.

Brett Schaefer: Seems like we are trying to define something ICANN sees as very malleable.

c.  Respecting

Tatiana Tropina: This is one of the more controversial issues for the drafting group. We believe the Bylaws use the term Respect to be in contrast to the Enforcement of Human Rights. It remains unclear if the Ruggie Principles can be the only reference.

Jorge Cancio: There is a lot of common ground and we are not so far apart. We are in agreement on the parameters of the Bylaws text to guide Respect. We also agree that ICANN will not enforce Human Rights. We also agree that the Ruggie Principles are an important source. The main area of contention is that I do not believe that Respect can only mean not violating – that would be an overly restrictive interpretation – It would be like saying we abstain from violating Human Rights. It is important to note that the Ruggie Principles do not have enforcement requirements for business partners – only moral obligations. For me respect has both a negative interpretation of not violating or infringing but also a positive interpretation of adjusting and promoting your activities in a way that is Human Rights conscious and our interpretation should cover both.

Avri Doria: accepting UNGP as a source is quite a step forward. perhaps not enough, but something 

Tatiana Tropina: I suggested to convert "abstaining" into the positive interpretation "taking into consideration in the policy making etc."

Niels ten Oever: Excellent

Tatiana Tropina: but that shall be balanced with core values and with mission

Tatiana Tropina: I can suggest the text for the next meeting

Lee Hibbard: the point is that the UNGPs sets out the standard of expectations with regard to human rights. This expectation extends to ICANN to the extent that it can be considered as an economic actor, just like it extends to an organization like FIFA, it is reasonable to expect that ICANN is a major economic actor and that it seeks to avoid doing harm to human rights in its activities and through its business relationships

Tatiana Tropina: something like

Tatiana Tropina: “taking into account the necessity to balance the Human Rights core value with other core values, ICANN should take into account human rights in developing its policies and in decision-making processes”. Very rough thought.

Kavous Arasteh: Ruggie Principles – We should say that we have considered various sources including the Ruggie Principles but these are not applicable wholesale to ICANN. But we could say that these are applicable under specified conditions. 

David McAuley: I am concerned about comments regarding mitigating Human Rights issues.

Bastiaan Goslings: It’s an interesting almost philosophical discussion about ‘respecting’ in the google-doc, and I do not want to be a party pooper

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think respecting means we will in fact perform the balancing act we have all been discussing.

Brett Schaefer: +1 David, mitigating or addressing implies ICANN would action. This goes against the text of the draft bylaw.

Bastiaan Goslings: But I wonder, when looking at the Human Rights core value, whether the ‘respecting’ can be separated from the ‘as required by’ as currently is done in the google doc…

KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Niels, What I said was, first of all we need an opening part to the use or otherwise of Ruggie Principle saying that the group has examined various sopurtce, among which was Ruggie Principle and concluded that not all those principles totally apply 

Greg Shatan: We have been clear that we should not try to implement all the Ruggie principles as is.

Niels ten Oever: Making great progress. Awaiting response from ICANN legal re Applicable Law. Would encourage everyone who has concrete comments please email these to the list or include these directly in the Google doc. Adjourned.

 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to the Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #10 on 18 October 2016 at 19:00 UTC!

  Niels ten Oever:Hello all

  Niels ten Oever:Dear staff, could it be that the mic functions are still disabled?

  Niels ten Oever:Thank you :)

  Yvette Guigneaux:Hi Niels, we're just about the audio rolling

  KAVOUSS ARASTEH:HI EVERY BODY

  Niels ten Oever:Welcome Kavouss

  KAVOUSS ARASTEH:Secretariat, pls advise to call me onm

  Markus Kummer:Hi all

  Brenda Brewer:All, I have to leave to request a dialout from the vendor operator.  I think I will still be announced as leaving, but tech support has put in request for this to be corrected.  A work in progress!  Thank you for your understanding.

  David McAuley (RySG):Hi Brenda, I am 8222

  Yvette Guigneaux:Ok David, will do - one host is still in the room so we're good

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Yvette

  Harold Arcos:Hello all from sunny Caracas

  Tatiana Tropina:hi all, I can't connect my audio bridge, dial in doesn't work, dial out doent's work either

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all - I'm the swiss number

  Yvette Guigneaux:Will do Niels

  Tatiana Tropina:ok I dialed in!

  Tatiana Tropina:finally the German system recognised my code

  David McAuley (RySG):ok thanks Niels

  David McAuley (RySG):Wordsmithing on list makes sense

  David McAuley (RySG):cant hear Kavouss

  David McAuley (RySG):fair point Kavouss, sorry about that

  Tatiana Tropina:By the way, I am on the german number (3791)

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):good point from Kavouss - especially late at night it is sometimes difficult to follow native speakers :-)

  Tatiana Tropina:Greg :)

  Yvette Guigneaux:You have scroll controll now Greg

  Tatiana Tropina:I can take over point. Or can intervene after each section.

  John Laprise:I like the format.

  Brenda Brewer:Please identify your name if your phone number is listed in Chat as xxxxx3791.  Thank you!

  David McAuley (RySG):agree with drafters that this point seems clear

  Brenda Brewer:Tatiana..I see your note above.  thank you!

  Tatiana Tropina:This shall be a public holday. Three laywers in HR DT agreed.

  David McAuley (RySG):Its a miracle

  Niels ten Oever:Rejoice

  Nigel Roberts:Folks, my apologies, but I have to leave the meeting around half past the hour.

  Tatiana Tropina:Niels, too early, believe me :D

  KAVOUSS ARASTEH:While nothing wrong with that quotation, I wonder whether we need that as it is not any interpretation?

  Brett Schaefer:After reading through the document, I think it would be etremely helpful if we could delete parts of the text that everyone has moved on from and provide a summary of comments/arguments with attribution. Th ecurrent document has too much comment repetion and edited text to be readily accessible.

  Brett Schaefer:sorry for typos.

  Tatiana Tropina:Brett, I agree. Four columns and old text is really confusing. We can create a cleaner clone and save this one for the record.

  John Laprise:+1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Agree with Brett that the text is still difficult. Rapporteur  and/or staff could do a bit more of cleaning

  Tatiana Tropina:I am not on the process

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):cleaner version  would  be appreciated  yes please  links to the bylaw secions  makes sense, but this doc is early version   so I thank you all for this

  Tatiana Tropina:but thsi can be discussed later.

  Tatiana Tropina:agree.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hard to hear you Kavous ( at least on my line)

  Niels ten Oever:Your audio is quite faint Kavouss

  Niels ten Oever:And fading in and out

  David McAuley (RySG):agreed, hard to hear

  David McAuley (RySG):that is much better

  Tatiana Tropina:yes clear.

  Tatiana Tropina:We will certainly look at that. Thanks Kavouss.

  Nigel Roberts:Although you may not get to item (e) before I have to leave, I would like to ask that we have at least one example of where ICANN is required by applicable law to engage any of the human rights.

  Nigel Roberts:And I submit that this document might be helpful to clarifiy the issues.

  Nigel Roberts:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.publications.parliament.uk_pa_jt200910_jtselect_jtrights_5_5i.pdf&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=ZG2Tg0zQfDCFK3sf_ZHIc2W3Ag4nIhDvHtxkIGK_eJY&s=UAoE5Rlzus1DfVKo6X9187SOZK8wRQsfDrS-pXO7I9s&e=

  Niels ten Oever:+1

  Niels ten Oever:The second column is easier to read, without all comments. Or at least that way I tried to make it easier for people who wanted to give it a quick read.

  Tatiana Tropina:I strongly support Greg's position. The core values are defined in the bylaws and it's hard to say that they are not what they are.

  Nigel Roberts:Have a succesful meeting .. I have to leave now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Nigel

  Niels ten Oever:Bye Nigel

  Niels ten Oever:We did have response on that

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There was a response from ICANN legal.  It arrived just prior to one of our calls  There was specific language from ICANN Legal as to this ByLaw.

  Greg Shatan:Happy to have other inputs, but not to the exclusion of providing our own guidance.

  Karen Mulberry:This was sent by ICANN Legal on 20 Sept in response to a HR request. Dear HR-Subgroup members,I understand that the question posed was "'What is the rationale for the addition of 'core values' to the ICANN bylaws, and what are its legal and non-legal implications in your opinion, especially for the human rights bylaw?”The Core Values have historically been part of the ICANN Bylaws, introduced after the ICANN evolution and reform effort in 2002, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_governance_bylaws_bylaws-2D15dec02-2Den.htm&d=DQIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=ZG2Tg0zQfDCFK3sf_ZHIc2W3Ag4nIhDvHtxkIGK_eJY&s=NLO62dMc1ArHtor-EVWg8ClRi6k-QZcoIdjau2i7PQs&e= .  From 2002 through the Bylaws as they exist today, the Core Values remained unchanged, with the following as guidance for the application of Core Values: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with balancing test.  The balancing also needs to be consistent with ICANN existing processes.  So, for example, there is a balancing that goes on with respect to PDP work.

  Karen Mulberry:con't the staement - With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed.  Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments.  The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other.The inclusion of the Human Rights commitment as a Core Value, which was expressly required in Annex 6 of the WS1 report, assures that it is an item that is considered while ICANN is performing its Mission.  The implication of this is strong, particularly where the FOI considers how to guide the interpretation of this obligation.  Of course, there are already legal obligations that are tethered to human rights obligations (for example, observing laws against human trafficking) that ICANN is already following. Given the long-standing nature of the Core Values section of the ICANN Bylaw

  Niels ten Oever:Thanks Karen!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):To sum up - I feel we have common ground on what it means that the HR is a core value here - but the devil is in the details and some rather absolute characterizations of the HR Core Value

  Tatiana Tropina:I was also suprised, but I thought it was about drafting team.

  Niels ten Oever:We first invite the drafting team to present different parts of the document

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):and we need to have clarity on the general relationship between commitments and core values, a question that goes beyond the HR Core Value - and a consistent approach would surely be needed for all core values and commitments, not just the HR one

  Tatiana Tropina:Greg+1

  Greg Shatan:Reading the second column would be a mistake.

  Greg Shatan:Even if it's more "readable."

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):the opinion of the group at large would certainly be very welcome on all parts...

  Greg Shatan:Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina:Ok I can start

  David McAuley (RySG):again having hard time hearing Kavouss

  Niels ten Oever:+1

  Tatiana Tropina:very hard to hear.

  Niels ten Oever:Kavouss - the audio is very bad - could you perhaps make text suggestions per email or maybe even in the Google Doc ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):If someone can repeat what Kavous  said please *brief overview*   I had too much chop to understand  much at all

  David McAuley (RySG):good suggestion Niels

  Greg Shatan:I think it's important to see the Core Values in the larger context, especially since Commiitments and Core Values are subparts of the same section.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):agree, Greg. But this is not specific to the HR FoI... but a general question about core values and commitments

  Brett Schaefer:Just to clarify, the balancing is between the different Core Values only? It is clear and agreed that the Core Values are secondary to Commiments and can under no circumstances violate the Mission? I ask because it is not clear that that is the case based on the reading and discussion.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I think that is the case, Brett

  Brett Schaefer:I am not sure how helpful the ICANN legal contribution (higher in the chat) is considering this statement: "Because they [core values] are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors"

  avri:i have trouble understanding how any core principle can trump human rights. but maybe in  time i can understand something like that. stranger things have happened.

  Brett Schaefer:Seems like we are trying to define something ICANN sees as very maleable.

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Tatiana, we are getting to the gravamen of our work here

  avri:i understand trades-off between human rights, but some other value being more?

  avri:oh well we have moved on to the next controversy. so will wait to see the light.

  Greg Shatan 2:That is inherent in the HR bylaw being a core value.

  Tatiana Tropina:No, the synegry. The HR is guided by the general concept of core values because it's  a part of it

  Tatiana Tropina:Greg is multiplying :) (Greg 2)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I will need to leave oon as my next ICANN Call starts at top of the hour and my dial out will come in soon,  I will try to say in AC here as long as I can though

  Greg Shatan 2:AC room crashed and I came back as 2.

  Niels ten Oever:Sounds lik a Star Trek episode

  Yvette Guigneaux:It does that Greg, not sure why

  Yvette Guigneaux:LOL, Niels

  avri:accepting ungp as a source is quite a step forward. perhaps not enough, but something.

  Tatiana Tropina:I suggested to convert "abstaining" into the positive interpretation "taking into consideration in the policy making etc."

  Niels ten Oever:Excellent

  Tatiana Tropina:but that shall be balanced with core values and with mission

  Niels ten Oever:Very good

  Tatiana Tropina:I can suggest the text for the next meeting

  Lee Hibbard:the point is that the UNGPs sets out the standard of expectations with regard to human rights. This expectation extends to ICANN to the extent thatit can be considered as an economic actor,  just like it extends to an organisation like FIFA.it is reasonable to expect that ICANN is a major economic actor and that it seeks to avoid doing harm to human rights in its activities and through its business relationships

  Tatiana Tropina:something like

  Tatiana Tropina:“taking into account the necessity to balance the HR core value with other core values, ICANN should take into account human rights in developing its policies and in decision-making processes”

  Tatiana Tropina:very rough thought.

  Brett Schaefer:@Tatiana, not balanced with the Mission, but within and consistent with the Mission?

  Daniel Appelman:Jorge +1

  Tatiana Tropina:Brett, yes, needs fine-tuning

  Lee Hibbard:respecting human rights requires exercising due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate the risk of involvement with adversehuman rights impact

  Brett Schaefer:I thought that the UNGP were not broadly applicable to ICANN based on the last meeting?

  Tatiana Tropina:Lee, by Ruggie.

  Lee Hibbard:jorge+1

  Tatiana Tropina:But we can come up with a tailored version of respect.

  Chris LaHatte:+1 lee

  avri:i ofr one never accepted that they were not broadly applicable.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@staff: to sum up for the notes: "respect" has a positive aspect (adjusting to, promoting consistent action with) and a negative element (not violating and not infringing)

  Tatiana Tropina:Brett I thought the same.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Wouldn't "respect" in the context of an HR-FOI mean that we would fully consider and appropriately balance Human Rights impact in relation to operations and polcies to be adopted?

  Niels ten Oever:The audio is still very muffled Kavouss

  Tatiana Tropina:The main point of this group was to get us out of Ruggie stuck.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Kavouss: the larger group has to discuss and give direction to the small group

  Tatiana Tropina:and figure out what we can do to tailor things for ICANN

  Brett Schaefer:@Avri, meaning that some UNGP might apply, but not all of them.

  avri:but as i am not part of the core group am willing to wiat and see what they come up with.

  Greg Shatan 2:I'm back.

  Tatiana Tropina:David, yes, I am also concerned.

  Greg Shatan 2:Avri, we are a mere drafting group, providing grist for the mill.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree  with you David

  avri:if we are not offending, what is the problem with saying we will mitigate if we do infringe.

  Greg Shatan 2:Color me concerned as well.

  Tatiana Tropina:David, thanks. I am in a violent agreement.

  Bastiaan Goslings:It’s an interesting almost philosophical discussion about ‘respecting’ in the google-doc, and I do not want to be a party pooper

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think respecting means we will in fact operofrm the balancing act we have all been discusssing.

  Brett Schaefer:+1 David, mitigating or addressingimplies ICANN would action. This goes against the text of the draft bylaw.

  Bastiaan Goslings:But I wonder, when looking at the HR core value, whether the ‘respecting’ can be separated from the ‘as required by’ as currently is done in the google doc…

  avri:automatic?

  KAVOUSS ARASTEH:Niels,What I said was, first of all we need an opening part to the use or otherwise of Ruggy Principle saying that the group has examined various sopurtce, among which was Rufggy Principle and concluded that not all those principle totally applly

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Have to move to the other AC room  sorry   Bye  for now

  David McAuley (RySG):Bye CLO

  Tatiana Tropina:We have to rely mostly on what ICANN is doing and what its remit is and tailor everything within these limits.

  Chris LaHatte:it surely means we don't disrespect those rights which then triggers some investigation

  Bastiaan Goslings:Bye CLO ;-)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):We all acknowledge a baalncing must be performed so full consideration of impacts and balancing based on Human Rights consdierations and other Core Values IS respecting.

  David McAuley (RySG):I spoke fast, aplogies, but near end of hour

  avri:i am still very concern by our avoidance of hr in these discussions.

  Tijani BEN JEMAA 2:@Greg +1

  Brett Schaefer:@Anne, nto sure I am clear what you mean.

  Tatiana Tropina:Greg count me as + 1 as well

  Greg Shatan 2:Exciting?  You need to get out more often.

  Tatiana Tropina:Ahahahaha Greg

  Greg Shatan 2:Ideally in an old convertible.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Brett - it is the full consideeration and the balancing act and whateer results from that that contstitutes the respect

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Niels, staff and all, bye

  David McAuley (RySG):three cheers drafting team

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):bye all

  Tatiana Tropina:thanks all! Bye

  Lee Hibbard:The UNGPs should be seen as a positive instrument to help orient ICANN's valiant efforts to respect human rights in its work

  Niels ten Oever:Bye all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye!

  Markus Kummer:Bye all


  • No labels