Attendees:
Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Konstantinos Komaitis, Leon Sanchez, Marilia Maciel, Mark Carvell, Melanie Penagos, Niels ten Oever, Robin Gross, Rudi Daniel, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina
Staff: Alice Jansen, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad
Apologies: Martin Boyle
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1znp9ou8sc/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp4-11sep15-en.mp3
Notes
NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Agenda:
1. Review Greg's document
Greg's agenda:
1. Confirm tasks: (a) Briefing and Discussion Paper; (b) Proposed Bylaw language
2. Briefing and Discussion Paper to become part of next CCWG Report
3. Is there any further use for the text in the "High Level Wording"? (Should all or any part of it be brought into the Briefing and Discussion Paper Draft)
4. Confirm which Google Doc we are working in going forward
5. Outline major points for Briefing and Discussion Paper
- Why is this needed now -- NTIA "backstop" / "duty bearer" role going away
- What Human Rights are we referring to? -- UDHR, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICT Sector Guide on implementing Ruggie Principles, etc.
- Fundamental Rights vs. Human RIghts
- What does "respecting" Human Rights mean [assumes we adopt that language in Bylaw]?
- How do Human Rights apply in the ICANN context?
- How will this be implemented?
- Does this create new rights/obligations within ICANN or simply confirm existing ones?
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (9/11/2015 08:21) Welcome to WP-4 Meeting #3 on 11 September @ 14:00 UTC! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:43) Hi Brenda
Brenda Brewer: (08:44) Good Day Kavouss!
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:44) Do you have any updates about f2f meeting CCWG-bOARD 25-26 sEPTEMBER IN LA?$
Brenda Brewer: (08:44) I do not have any updates.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:44) Dear Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:46) I sent several message to Grace, Aléice Jennifer to clarify the matter as I am ATTENDING icg 18-19 in LA and it is imnportant to know about the f2f meeting CCWG-Board as I have to know how could I arrantge the ticket already bought.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:46) Three persons with whom I sought the clarification have not yet reply
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:47) May you kindly remind them including Joseph de Jesus
Brenda Brewer: (08:47) Certainly.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:47) Tks and sorry to bother you
Brenda Brewer: (08:48) You're welcome. No bother!
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:49) Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:49) Is there any agenda for this meeting
Brenda Brewer: (08:50) I currently do not have an agenda.
Kavouss Arasteh: (08:51) tks
Brenda Brewer: (08:58) Kavouss, can you please look at private chat regarding your dial out
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:00) MY NUMBER IS THE INITIAL ONE
Brenda Brewer: (09:00) OK
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:00) +41793256534
Brenda Brewer: (09:00) Thank you Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:00) I am back to Geneva
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:01) some point were suggested by Greg
Leon Sanchez: (09:02) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h36fvBBwR40Eu87XPHN6Yxoz3zFkTZ7ZreYG0kymSOY/edit
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:06) it's me, sry, logging in now
David McAuley: (09:09) Sorry to be late
Rudi Daniel: (09:10) excuse late joining. thx
Brenda Brewer: (09:13) Kavouss, your phone line is open
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:18) IS IT OK NOW PLS?
Leon Sanchez: (09:18) Will go to you right after Greg, Kavouss
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:18) More ppl agreed on the highlevel wording than on the other doc, no?
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:19) And I think we agreed on high level wording, substantial discussion would go into WS2
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:19) We're going a bit in circles
Tatiana Tropina: (09:19) Niels, I think this doc was meant to be a background paper for proposed Bylaws language
Leon Sanchez: (09:19) We did agree on high level wording Niels
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:20) I think the discussion on the list and last call pointed to this.
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:21) This is already a commitment under art 4 of art of inc
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:21) Franework, impact assessment is WS2
Avri Doria: (09:21) i think we have to repsect all, though most will not be relevant.
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:21) that is also what report says
Avri Doria: (09:22) We have as much time as it take to educate people to this essential need.
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:24) List discussion + last call
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:24) wE CERTAINLY NEED TO REFER TO CERTAIN REFERNCES
Avri Doria: (09:24) are we at a minority opinion point?
Tatiana Tropina: (09:24) I also remember there was an agreement
Brenda Brewer: (09:26) he is connected, perhaps we should call him again..
Greg Shatan: (09:26) IO'
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:26) +1
Greg Shatan: (09:27) I've looked over the the notes from the September 2 call and see no reference to the agreement you refer to.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:27) aRTICLE 19 PLUS OTHER DOCS SUCH INTERNATIONAL CONVENANT....
Greg Shatan: (09:27) Not just "Article 19" -- all the Articles of the UDHR.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:28) gREC + 1
Leon Sanchez: (09:28) Article 19 is the organization Niels works for
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:28) Plus International Covenant....
Leon Sanchez: (09:28) not a suggestion to reffer to that article only
David McAuley: (09:29) +1 @Niels
Avri Doria: (09:29) and work is being done in the GAC subgroup on HR. all of these efforts have to come together in WS2.
Marilia Maciel: (09:29) Hello all, sorry for being late. Got held in another meeting.
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:29) Indeed
David McAuley: (09:29) Good point Avri - there will be much to work on and work out
Tatiana Tropina: (09:30) + 1 to Niels. I thought that this longer doc is just a short explanatory note to proposed Bylaws changes.
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:30) Text for bylaw
Avri Doria: (09:30) yes, the bylaw needs to be the fundamental stmt.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:30) Pls also look at WSIS +10 High Level Multistakehiolder meeting in June 2014
David McAuley: (09:31) I agree @Gre on para 152 alternatives
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:31) I don't think that was the raison d'etre for wp4, right?
David McAuley: (09:31) And the work we do to put meat on the bones can be done now but fits into WS2 as I see it
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:31) +1 david
David McAuley: (09:31) @Greg that is
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:32) As it already is because of art 4 of art of incorporation
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:32) There is no new commitment
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:32) We had this discussion already several times
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:32) Reference to International Covenant on political rights.... is also necessary
Tatiana Tropina: (09:34) But then we have to agree on bylaw language first and then draft the explanation, no?
Avri Doria: (09:34) we did agree at some point to help the Board by providing a basic rationale. and that is a good ting for us to work on, but it is not the deliverable of this group which was to be a recommendation on wording.
Greg Shatan: (09:35) Niels, I agree we have had these discussions before. We now have to document those discussions.
Greg Shatan: (09:35) We can't rely on public comments to tell us why we are doing something!
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:36) But you repreat the argument commitment to HR might result in new risks/workflow, whereas it is already a commitment.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:36) Yes, first agree on the language and then draft the explanatory note.
Avri Doria: (09:36) if yiu are saying we can't work on refined language until tmorrow, when the comment period ends, that may be the case. So is this a rationale stmt?
Greg Shatan: (09:37) If we are trying to work quickly, we need to work in parallel.
Leon Sanchez: (09:37) Can we please display p 150 and 151?
Greg Shatan: (09:37) NIels, there are some who say this is already a commitment, and others who say this is creating additional commitments.
David McAuley: (09:37) Working in parallel would make sense
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:38) There are two ARTICLE 19
Avri Doria: (09:38) if we are saying that one of the two proposed statement, perhaps ammended based on comments, is going to be slected, and we need to add a rationale, i think that may make sense.
Leon Sanchez: (09:38) Kavouss, Article 19 is an organization, not a reference to any actual article
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:38) @Greg, can you point me to those arguments? I have asked for it repreatedly, but haven't seen it.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:38) Article 19 OD UDHR and Article 19 of ICCPR
David McAuley: (09:38) I was wrong, the current alternatives are in para 151, not 152
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:39) Both should be refernced
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:39) referenced
Greg Shatan: (09:40) Niels, I think Stephanie just answered your question, since she indicates that new obligations will be required if we add this language to the bylaws. On top of that, there's been plenty of discussion in the CCWG list, which is publicly archived.
Stephanie Perrin: (09:40) Is not one of the risks that each country will come with its own statement of fundamental rights?
David McAuley: (09:41) Agree with Kavouss re: respect as the operative term
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:41) @Greg / Stephanie -> What would these commitments be?
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:42) Without examples or links this is a very hypothetical point., that gets repreated a lot.
Stephanie Perrin: (09:43) My argument would be to stick to the UDHR. It is the closest thing to international convergence that we have. Plenty of countries do not agree with the balance that the US Supreme COurt has struck. SOme of us would prefer the balance that the ECJ and ECHR have struck.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:44) I DISAGREE to only refer to THAT DOC ONLY
Stephanie Perrin: (09:44) It is in my view important to recognize that some rights are in tension.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:45) Yes but boh should be referred
Tatiana Tropina: (09:46) but can we explain bylaw before drafting it? If we don't have an agreement on bylaw language...
Greg Shatan: (09:47) I think we need to confirm what the purpose of this group is, rather than rely on recollection.
Greg Shatan: (09:48) I think we can do quite a lot of work toward the goal of explaining the bylaw before we nail the bylaw language down.
Greg Shatan: (09:49) I disagree. And I don't think any of this discussion is philosophical. It needs to be practical since it will indicate how ICANN will act and how that changes what ICANN does.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:49) @Gerg, yes, partially. But if there is no agreement on the bylaw language the work on the document won't help to reach an agreement.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:49) sorry for typo - Greg
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:49) +1
Marilia Maciel: (09:49) If we nail it down, we can explain it. It becomes circunscribed and concrete. If we discuss in theory, we will probably write a compendium :)
Tatiana Tropina: (09:50) we can write yet another theoretical paper on human rights.
Avri Doria: (09:51) have we spent the whole meeting talking about talking?
Tatiana Tropina: (09:51) Avri I wanted to ask the same.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:52) There is a point to work on the explanatory note, but first may be agree on the language
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:52) nope
Stephanie Perrin: (09:52) With respect Greg, we have argued at ICANN about WHOIS policy and implementation for 17 years wtihout defining the purpose of WHOIS.....so it is not the first time that ICANN has left holes in its legal requirements. Contracts implement an unproven and inadequately documented assertion and statement of risk. I would hate to see this debate go on for 17 years as well, so we should in my view proceed step by step.
Avri Doria: (09:53) Greg is right, if we tear the poroposal apart as seems to be required by Board comments, we will have lots of time.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:54) The explanatory note can reflect all our discussion on bylaw + explain the context
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (09:54) +1
Stephanie Perrin: (09:54) +1 Tatiana
Avri Doria: (09:54) i think had we all known that we were setting apart the discussion of which stmt pending comments and had just been working on rationale, we might have avoided this hour of conversation about ur motives.
Greg Shatan: (09:55) Whether we call it an "explanatory note" or a discussion paper, I do feel we need to have more than just a bare statement of the bylaw.
Avri Doria: (09:56) by the next meeting we will know the comments and can settle on the stmt for the bylaws, then we continue, serially.
Tatiana Tropina: (09:56) @Greg, yes, but just drafting it now doesn't make much sense if we have discussions on language after drafting it (and we will have them, probably)
Avri Doria: (09:56) we have lots of good raw material for that ratiionale and it will be easier once we know which way we are going with the bylaw.
Stephanie Perrin: (09:56) So does this mean there is agreement on a "statement of Rationale" and if so who is holding the pen?
David McAuley: (09:56) 151
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:57) Always important valuable to have general rational set out in tandem (though readily admit GAC not always good at that!)..
Avri Doria: (09:57) the Board holds that pen, we were just going to try and help them by puttig something in the document, i thought.
David McAuley: (09:57) that's where the alternatioves are - in 151
Stephanie Perrin: (09:58) I would call this rationale a discussion paper, and I would put in what I would call a regulatory impact assessment.
Avri Doria: (09:58) so we should all work this paper offline.
Stephanie Perrin: (09:58) Once that is drafted the logic for inclusion in the bylaws is irrefutable
Avri Doria: (09:59) this is ICANN, someone clever can alwasy have something that appears to be refutation.
Kavouss Arasteh: (09:59) WHAT is the amendment pls
Avri Doria: (09:59) or they can tie the conversation in som many knots it looks refusted by confusion.
Marilia Maciel: (10:00) Can someone send us after the call please the link to the one doc we will be working on? That would be helpful.
Stephanie Perrin: (10:00) Indeed, I would identify the discourse here as one of the risks, and I would put that in the RIA.
Marilia Maciel: (10:01) Thanks so much, Leon!
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (10:01) Thanks!
Tatiana Tropina: (10:01) thanks!
Rudi Daniel 2: (10:01) the. Good.
David McAuley: (10:01) thanks Leon, good bye all
Niels ten Oever - Article19: (10:01) Goodbye everyone, have a good day. Thanks Leon.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (10:01) Thanks, Leon and all! Bye!
Marilia Maciel: (10:01) Thanks! Bye all!
Leon Sanchez: (10:02) Thanks everyone!
