Attendees:
Sub-group Members: Aarti Bhavana, Brett Schaefer, David McAuley, Ellen Blackler, Erika Mann, Greg Shatan, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Markus Kummer, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Nigel Roberts, Paul Twomey, Robin Gross, Ron da Silva, Samantha Eisner, Tatiana Tropina (19)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Karen Mulberry
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recordings
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8b88tc5tj2/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp4-30oct15-en.mp3
Agenda
1. Welcome
2. Explanation by Paul Twomey on practical steps involved in changes of TLD operator (focused on ccTLD)
3. Review of proposed addition to our PC2 document
4 AOB
Notes
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
Explanation by Paul Twomey on practical steps involved in changes of TLD operator (focused on ccTLD)
Concerns about ruggie principles applying to business partners: how do we interpret them with respect to ICANN. How far do
we wish to have ICANN accountable for human rights tests? IANA processes are constant operational processes based on
ruggie principles which could be contrary to human rights. Where will boundary apply here? We should not put at risk IANA
necessity to deal with operations. If we were to apply human rights to all operations, existing rules will result in disputes.
Feedback:
- It was never decision of WP4/CCWG to adopt ruggie principles as they are and implement them. They are guidelines. If we
need to implement them, we need to develop a proper human rights policy. It should be in WS2 but we need to toroughly look
at it i.e. how it is balanced.
- We should not be going into detail in particular with ccTLDs. We should not be engaged in that in WS1. This is not the UN's
Human Rights Committee. We should avoid referring to countries and remain neutral.
- It has never been intent to adopt these principles for WS1. It is a high level notion of respect. Only national courts are able to
deal with claims.
- It was not the intention to commit to Ruggie principles. Discussions should go to Work Stream 2. It should be reflected briefly in
document. There should not be commitment to ruggies principles.
- Detailed explanation of to what extent ruggie principles form accountability is clearly WS1. There needs to be a high level
statement in WS1. Bullet statements: ICANN will respect human rights, UN declaration, Ruggie. UN declaration to avoid ambiguity
and ruggie goes to WS2.
--> agreement in Dublin not to include references to UN
- We need to be wise in understanding that we are operating in not-for-profit, ICANN will have to follow rule of law. We need to be careful about how could activitsts could take wording we use to Court.
- Suggestion to add a 12th point to the Core Values in the bylaws stating "12. In its operations, ICANN will respect internationally
recognized human rights. "It seems a modest step that can be developed further in WS2 if necessary.
--> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2.
- Uncomfortable with definition as it is broad. Reference to UDHR
- In Dublin we indicated that the general language would be refined. We will need to raise issues - resolving them is WS2 - recognizing
them is WS1. Respect conveys set of tasks. We need to convey what attitude is towards ruggie principles.
--> Transcript shows that we would refine option 1 language.
- Disagree with Greg that word respect in Bylaws change will mean that we are committed to Ruggie principle.
- We should operate under a defined breakdown
0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and
scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to exclude protection, 5) AOB
- Documentation of our decisions will be needed. Input was already circulated on this. We should use that structure.
- Be non-political
ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to ruggie principles.
CONCLUSION - 1) We need to fine tune our Bylaw guidelines as a priority; 2) We need to focus on explanatory note; 3) We need
to assess whether transitional Bylaw would be good placeholder for framework.
Suggest transitional Bylaw to ensure that discussion will happen in WS2. We cannot deviate discussion into covering more issues.
We need to refine the Bylaw language that we will be proposing, drafting rationale and consider adding the transitional Bylaw.
Monday, 2 Nov - 13:00 UTC call to finalize document for CCWG consideration
ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite.
ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not
mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on
respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB
Review of proposed addition to our PC2 document
Proposed text for transitional Bylaw.
Feedback:
- Suggest "we will work as expeditiously as possible"
- Should is a soft stop
--> This will be for lawyers who develop Bylaws
- We are placing ourselves to 12-month window where other parties will do interpretation of work of us and risk litigation.
- Clarify that whole status exist so that it is clear that risk of having others interpret it for us without guidance needs to be shut off.
--> Transitional Bylaw would put it on hold until framework is properly developed
CONCLUSION OF CALL
We will be finalizing documents that will be in next report. We will hold a call on Monday to analyse docs. We will be drafting
second document that will be included in next proposal.
Action Item
--> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2.
ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to ruggie principles.
ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite.
ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not
mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on
respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (10/30/2015 09:31) Welcome to WP4 Meeting #8 on 30 October @ 15:00 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: (09:35) Hi Bre nd
kavouss.arasteh: (09:35) Hi those who will join later
Brenda Brewer: (09:36) Hi Kavouss!
kavouss.arasteh: (09:47) Dear Brenda
kavouss.arasteh: (09:48) Pls kindly advise whether there are docs. for WP1 available
Aarti Bhavana: (09:49) Hi Brenda, Kavouss. Looks like I'm a bit early.
Brenda Brewer: (09:51) Hi Aarti! Meeting starts in about 10 minutes
Aarti Bhavana: (09:52) Thank you!
Brenda Brewer: (09:56) Kavouss, see email sent from Jordan regarding WP1.
Greg Shatan: (10:00) Hello, all!
Niels ten Oever: (10:00) Hi all
Tatiana Tropina: (10:00) hi all !
Niels ten Oever: (10:00) yes
Greg Shatan: (10:00) Dialing in but still waiting for an operator.
Tatiana Tropina: (10:01) me too
Tatiana Tropina: (10:01) was going to complain about this
David McAuley: (10:01) also waiting for operator
Tatiana Tropina: (10:01) already 3 minutes on hold
Greg Shatan: (10:02) Welcome to the conference calling center. Please have your passcode and conference leaders name available....
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:02) hi all
David McAuley: (10:02) ditto Greg
Greg Shatan: (10:02) I am now dialed in....
Matthew Shears: (10:02) hi
David McAuley: (10:02) finally in the call
Greg Shatan: (10:03) The document on screen is now a Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bm0NnIq35j3-EwmBwKEjSOJia-c10wv0mhHytngTDiM/edit?usp=sharing
Tatiana Tropina: (10:04) dialed in yay :)
Tatiana Tropina: (10:05) Greg, thanks for the google doc :)
David McAuley: (10:06) yes, thanks Greg
Matthew Shears: (10:06) ruggie raises a number of questions including who or what are ICANN's "business partners" and "other parties directly lionked to its operations, products orservices"
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:06) Hi all
David McAuley: (10:08) I think the points Paul is making underscore the need for some caution in WS1 and time to sort out consequences of what might happen in WS2.
Tatiana Tropina: (10:08) I already told many times that we can't blindly commit to Ruggie, it was developed for businesses, we can see what we can use as standards and implement something in our frameworks, but commitment to Ruggie is nit the best option...
Greg Shatan: (10:08) nit?
Tatiana Tropina: (10:08) David, I think this debate is definitely for WS2 because we are not going to include Ruggie to the bylaw language
Tatiana Tropina: (10:08) NOT :)
David McAuley: (10:08) Neither ICANN nor “related parties” of any stripe should, IMO, become forums for sorting out HR complaints.
David McAuley: (10:09) Gre is a nit picker
David McAuley: (10:09) Greg, that is
Tatiana Tropina: (10:09) Great thanks for nit picking :D
Leon Sanchez: (10:09) I agree that this is a discussion that should take place in WS2
Tatiana Tropina: (10:10) And I made a typo in Greg :)
kavouss.arasteh: (10:10) Leon
Tatiana Tropina: (10:10) Leon, absolutely
Matthew Shears: (10:10) agree this is problematical Paul
David McAuley: (10:11) Good point Paul about IANA's lack of flexibility in this area regarding who it deals with
Niels ten Oever: (10:11) Agree this is an issue, but I think this should be part of deliberations in WS2
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:11) I would find it a bit troubling for ICANN to be expected to start judging as if it were the world's law enforcement agency. Extraterritoriality comes in here. So best for WS2
kavouss.arasteh: (10:11) Pls note that we should be carefull and prudent not to ienter into national soverignty of the countreies and terrirtories members of ICANN
Tatiana Tropina: (10:11) I think Paul raises valid points, we need to keep this transcript for WS2
Greg Shatan: (10:12) I disagree. I think in our rationale and explanation, we will need to touch on the potential relationship to Ruggie principles when the Bylaw is effective. Paul's points should be captured in our WS1 document even if not resolved until WS2.
David McAuley: (10:12) Thank you Paul - please stay with us in WS2
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:12) thanks Paul!
David McAuley: (10:14) very feint Niels
Alice Jansen: (10:14) @ Niels - we can hardly hear you
David McAuley: (10:14) better
Alice Jansen: (10:14) Yes :-)
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:15) my hand was raised up but got lost because of connectivity :(
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:15) @Greg: I think I would have problems with suggesting an extrateritorial role for ICANN. Would I be willing for ICANN to judge Human Rights issues in the UK?
Leon Sanchez: (10:15) @Greg would you be able to propose language for our document to reflect Paul's points so we have it as a guide on our work under WS2?
Leon Sanchez: (10:16) @Tatiana, what was your place in the queue?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:16) Leon, I am not Greg but I think I already wrote something Ruggie and dangers on the malining list so if we need volunteers to reflect this I am in too
Matthew Shears: (10:16) + 1 Niels - we need to look at them in detail in WS2 as to how they can be appropriately framed for ICANN if that is the WGs intent
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:16) after Kavouss :(
ellen blackler: (10:16) Leon - Nigel is onteh phone and wants to talk. has no adobe access
David McAuley: (10:16) Thanks Niels
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:17) thanks Niels - there is a lot of work in implementing these guidelines...
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:17) @Kavouss +1
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:18) ccTLDs are mainly subject to national policies
Greg Shatan: (10:19) I'd be happy to help along with Tanya and others. I think we'll need this transcript to do the issues justice.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:20) Now for some strange reason I am Tatiana Tropina 2. in the room... They cloned me
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:20) @David +1
Paul Twomey: (10:20) I think David's language for WS1 respect for HR is useful
Greg Shatan: (10:21) Tanya, maybe you ate my hand and became Tatiana Tropina 2.
Matthew Shears: (10:22) + 1 Tatiana
David McAuley: (10:23) I agree Tatiana (and Niels) that Ruggie was never our intent in WS1 but there has been enough discussion of them that we need to be clear and explicit to readers from beyond WP4
Niels ten Oever: (10:23) Deadline is day after tomorrow?!
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:23) WHAT?
Greg Shatan: (10:23) What about me?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:23) Greg, then the question is who ate my hand :) it was raised too
Leon Sanchez: (10:24) Yes, our deadline to deliver is November 1st :(
Leon Sanchez: (10:24) so we can panic at this point
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:24) Oh that's too bad.
Greg Shatan: (10:24) I did not lower my hand, so I should ot be in the back of the queue.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:24) I am mostly offline, Can find couple of hours tomorrow
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:24) in the morning
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:24) Leon, the deadline is for the whole rationale?
Niels ten Oever: (10:24) Let's move soon to document drafting agenda point then. Lot of work to do.
Niels ten Oever: (10:24) Flying to Japan tomorrow.
Greg Shatan: (10:25) I am helping my son move tomorrow and then celebrating Halloween in Greenwich Village...
Leon Sanchez: (10:25) @Tatiana yes the deadline is for us to deliver all our work
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:25) I can't do anything tonight... and tomorrow as well. This is too bad to be true
David McAuley: (10:25) And I am on the road tomorrow and Sunday
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:25) I can't volunteer then :(
David McAuley: (10:25) We should try to get two more days
David McAuley: (10:25) or even one
Niels ten Oever: (10:25) "within scope and mission"
Leon Sanchez: (10:25) Would you be able if we get two more days until Nov 3?
Leon Sanchez: (10:26) I know a guy
Greg Shatan: (10:26) We are not going to make that deadline. We can't doe this with a gun to our head. That must constitute a human rights violation....
Leon Sanchez: (10:26) who knows two guys
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:26) There is no way to make it.
kavouss.arasteh: (10:26) We nned to avoid sebntdesizing countries and territories memebrs of ICANN in entering in their national responsibilities and sovereign rights.
Leon Sanchez: (10:26) @Greg @Tatiana Nov 3?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:26) I am still speechless.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:27) I am mostly offline till Monday :(
kavouss.arasteh: (10:27) Our engagement are to be limited to the missions and core values of the ICANN and not acting as a designated authority of the UN
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:27) I can find couple of hours to make any comments to the doc etc but I can't draft... :(
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:27) this is just too bad
Greg Shatan: (10:27) I can find some time SUnday.
Niels ten Oever: (10:27) I can do some hours of work
David McAuley: (10:27) Agree with Nigel and maybe we should add in WS1 a sentence that this does not mean protection - is not an opening to complaints
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:28) Gerg, Niels, can you be pen holders? I will try tp contribute remotely
Greg Shatan: (10:28) But only if I get called on eventually even though my hand was chopped off without my consent./
David McAuley: (10:28) at any level
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:28) Greg O/
Niels ten Oever: (10:28) /me holding up Gregs hand
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:28) // support
Greg Shatan: (10:28) Severed hand?
Niels ten Oever: (10:29) Superglue
David McAuley: (10:29) Good point Paul - ICANN is subject to courts of many nations
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:29) I still don't like to be poor second (Tatiana Tropina 2)
Brett Schaefer: (10:29) What about my suggestion to add a 12th point to the Core Values in the bylaws stating "12. In its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. "It seems a modest step that can be developed furtehr in WS2 if necessary.
Greg Shatan: (10:29) You are your own evil twin.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:29) Dark side :)
David McAuley: (10:30) IMO we need a "for avoidance of doubt" clause beyond that saying ICANN and related parties are not forum for HR complaint
David McAuley: (10:30) Beyond Brett's suggestion, that is
Greg Shatan: (10:30) Brett, that's just another variation on the proposed Bylaw.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:30) We need a time machine to have one week for drafting
David McAuley: (10:31) Board's word was "premature"
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:31) Brett actually raised very good points in his email. They shall be considered for drafting. But I can't do it :(
David McAuley: (10:31) Agree Tatiana and Brett
David McAuley: (10:32) Thank you Markus, good to know
Brett Schaefer: (10:33) Greg, yes, but it seems to fit neatly into the current bylaw framework, whereas a new separate bylaw provision would be more aggressive. In addition, the core values are clear that they "core values should guide the decisions and actions of ICANN" which avoids the legal concerns raised by some.
Brett Schaefer: (10:34) Sorry, that the core values shoudl only "guide the decsions and actions" rather than bind them.
Matthew Shears: (10:34) nice proposal Brett
Leon Sanchez: (10:36) from the transcript
Leon Sanchez: (10:36) LEON SANCHEZ: Thank you very much, Kavouss. So I guess my take from thisdiscussion is that we obviously need refinement and I would justcall for refining Point Number 1, because that is the one that Ithink has actually had more traction, and we would take thatlanguage and refine it, and from there, we would of course comeback to the group.
Matthew Shears: (10:36) so we agree on nedeing to refine
David McAuley: (10:37) I like Brett’s core value idea but given the enhancement to IRP I think we need to be clear about HR (wherever mentioned) and non-enforceability of HR claims at ICANN
Niels ten Oever: (10:38) ROFL
David McAuley: (10:38) LOL, Greg - what a big broom that would take
Brett Schaefer: (10:38) David, that would be prudent in my opinion.
Matthew Shears: (10:38) how enforceable would such a non-enforceablity provison be?
David McAuley: (10:39) It would certainly help, and IMO work, Matthew, but good question
Leon Sanchez: (10:40) That is the aim of the transitional bylaw as I see it Greg
Leon Sanchez: (10:40) it would put the bylaw in pause until a proper framework was developed under WS2
David McAuley: (10:42) Echos of the Clinton nomination speech "finally" - LOL again, Greg
Niels ten Oever: (10:43) Using 'respect' implies obligations?!
Niels ten Oever: (10:43) Ruggie Principles are only Guidelines, there are no obligations at all
David McAuley: (10:43) I respect the opinion, but disagree
Niels ten Oever: (10:44) Not if we don't put them in the bylaw
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:44) Could Greg elaborate how guidelines are obligations? As long as there is no implementation of the guidelines transforming them in obligations they remain legally just guidelines. I feel that should not be difficult to convey
Brett Schaefer: (10:45) If respect does imply obligations as Greg indicates, then putting it in the core values with its "guide" preface makes even more sense. in my opinion.
kavouss.arasteh: (10:45) Any movement and or change in the ccTLD in a given country is the prorogative of that country with due respect to thde princles and rules currently in force without any need to expoand that
David McAuley: (10:45) Agree @ Jorge, but think it important to convey quite clearly
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:46) let us refine that together...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:46) +1 Leon on IPR and HR...
Greg Shatan: (10:46) If we don't implement the Guidelines, they are not obligations. If we do, then they will become obligations. Simple as that. But ad hoc attempts to bring in pieces of Ruggie while WS2 is scribbling away need to be rejected now.
Niels ten Oever: (10:47) Old hand
David McAuley: (10:47) If anything has become clearer in this call is the need for a cautious approach to WS1, IMO
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:47) @Greg: implementation of guidelines does not mean compulsorily transforming them into obligations
Greg Shatan: (10:47) Might be my severed hand..
kavouss.arasteh: (10:47) Dear Leoin,
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:47) that is a decision to be made during implementation
Brenda Brewer: (10:48) We are calling you back Kavouss as your line has disconnected.
Matthew Shears: (10:48) @ Greg - we need a full assessment of the suitability of the ruggie princples to ICANN in WS2
David McAuley: (10:48) Greg, I will add hands in the chat now
Brenda Brewer: (10:48) Kavouss, we are getting Busy tone from your phone line
Greg Shatan: (10:48) Jorge, I agree it is adecision to be made in implementation and more fully analyzed in WS2, but the point has to be clear in WS1.
David McAuley: (10:48) brief hands
Alice Jansen: (10:48) Loud typing - please mute your lines when not speaking.
Brett Schaefer: (10:48) Greg, I agree, we should avoid pointing to specific principles like RUggie until the implications are fully vetted.
Greg Shatan: (10:49) RESPECT is a clear pointer to the Ruggie Principles.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:49) Greg, I disagree
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:49) @Greg: I agree that it is good to have clarity. Legal certainty is clearly something important
kavouss.arasteh: (10:49) With sincere thanks and in-depth apporeciation we may need to consider to shift all discussions regarding humnan rightrs to WS2 within the framework that I did indicate ( not intervening in the internal affairs of any sovereign state while requiring the cureent rulkes which has worked well contine to be implemented .
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:49) Unless Ruggie is mentioned there is no commitment.
Niels ten Oever: (10:49) +1 Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:50) Well we will have public comment period for this doc, right?
Greg Shatan: (10:50) RESPECT is the second column of Ruggie.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:50) Greg, this is bylaw language not a mind reader :)
Brenda Brewer: (10:50) Kavouss is not reconnected by phone yet
kavouss.arasteh: (10:50) Thus we may slow down the activities of WP4 and release you from the current task epomphasizing that you have a great and sensible responsibilities as one of the very active co chairs of CCWG
Greg Shatan: (10:50) Bylaw language will be interpreted by skillful and evil lawyers based on points such as these.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:50) Primary rules which are subject to secondary rules to become effective is a standard procedure...
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:51) Greg when there is no commitment - there is no obligation
Greg Shatan: (10:51) I agree, but there is a question of direction and intenteion.
Greg Shatan: (10:52) Maybe we should put up the new timeline!
Greg Shatan: (10:52) In the Adobe.
Greg Shatan: (10:52) Tatiana, that is good dating advice BTW.... :-)
kavouss.arasteh: (10:53) lEON, DEAR Colleagues , once again let us limit ourselves to any provisions that are implementable and there are criteria to assess them otherwise they would only remains as empty words and unimplementable
Greg Shatan: (10:53) I think we can do some of the work after it is in the CCWG's hands....
Matthew Shears: (10:54) what refinements are folks thinking about w/r/t the proposed bylaw language?
David McAuley: (10:54) We floated the idea of an HR bylaw in draft two – probably unable to back on that toward all work in WS2 now. IMO, we need to build on draft-two alternative that is chosen and add an “avoidance of doubt” clause on enforcement and point folks interested in this to join us in WS2.
Greg Shatan: (10:54) Three Pillars of Ruggie: "Protect, Respect and Remedy"
Greg Shatan: (10:55) Home▹UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on business &...▹UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework and Guiding...UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework and Guiding PrinciplesUN Special Representative John Ruggie proposed a framework on business & human rights to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2008, resting on three pillars:the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business;the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; andgreater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial. '
Niels ten Oever: (10:55) Hitachi also has respect in its CSR commitment without UNGP http://www.hitachi.com/csr/society/respect.html
kavouss.arasteh: (10:55) We need to also note that any provisions putting in Bylaws are for ICANN to respect and implkement we are not responsible to establish Rules for sovereign countries
Paul Twomey: (10:56) I am concerned that the "respect" or not language of the Bylaws may be missing the point. My concern remains the boundary limits on the ICANN operations and ecosystem.
Niels ten Oever: (10:56) " respect for and observance of human rights" is in the UDHR
Greg Shatan: (10:56) We need to raise issues now to be resolved later. No sweeping them under the ruggie.
Niels ten Oever: (10:56) Respect is not unique for Ruggie at all
Niels ten Oever: (10:56) Greg sees flying carpets
Niels ten Oever: (10:56) ;)
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:57) carpetruggies
Greg Shatan: (10:57) Then we need to explain that the use of respect is not intended to be a reference to Ruggie or an indication that the CCWG intends to recommend adoption of Ruggie.
Niels ten Oever: (10:57) Sure
Matthew Shears: (10:57) @ Paul - within its mission and operartions not sufficient parameters?
Niels ten Oever: (10:57) But we have talked about this language for months
David McAuley: (10:57) Leon, not really warming to the idea of one bylaw that is affected by a second – delaying? – bylaw, maybe we could handle in one
Paul Twomey: (10:58) Perhaps if it is one of 12 counterviling values for ICANN to consider may be ok, but I would still prefer to see it limited in some way. Perhaps something which says "in its core policy development and convening processes" respect etc
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:58) Greg yes. Simple solution. Explanation :)
Niels ten Oever: (10:58) That's good with me
Paul Twomey: (10:58) I know this is WS2 work
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:58) and one of our winning argument is that Ruggie is for business and we are NOT business
Paul Twomey: (10:58) But putting somehting in Bylaws now will be hard to change later
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:58) how can one link the word respect to Ruggie in this case?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (10:59) Paul, I think it's ok when there is no Ruggie in language. I am myself in the opposition to Ruggie
David McAuley: (10:59) Agree with Paul - what gets in there will stay and will be interpreted by many others than us
kavouss.arasteh: (11:01) Paul+1
Paul Twomey: (11:01) Tatiana this may be good - but David's observation is useful. How would we react to a judege saying but in your technical steps how did you follow HR?
David McAuley: (11:01) 89 minutes now Greg, not 90 anymore
Niels ten Oever: (11:01) hahaha lol
Matthew Shears: (11:01) tatiana - business is being increasingly liberally interporeted w/r/t ruggie
Greg Shatan: (11:01) Leon: "You who are about to die, we salute you."
kavouss.arasteh: (11:01) Dear Leon,
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:02) Please move the deadline :)
David McAuley: (11:02) call on Monday is ok with me,
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:02) Mondy is good
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:02) Monday
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:02) I have know idea who Mondy is
kavouss.arasteh: (11:02) Pls kindly advise all participants to refrain pointing towards any particulatr countrey or territory,
Niels ten Oever: (11:02) Could we do a bit earlier?
kavouss.arasteh: (11:03) This wp meeting should not be used as an open tribune for any thing beyound our mandates
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:03) I can be a very very very unregular volunteer :( I am mostly offline but I can at least contribue or at least a bit
David McAuley: (11:03) earlier ok w me
Niels ten Oever: (11:03) thanks
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:03) Niels, real Ninja never sleep in japan!
Niels ten Oever: (11:03) Would be great
ellen blackler: (11:03) +1 on earlier
Greg Shatan: (11:03) Earlier is bette, I have to take my wife to the doctor on Monday a half hour after this time slot.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:03) But please not at 6 am in Europe :)
Brenda Brewer: (11:04) Will send Doodle in next 5 minutes
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:04) Thanks Brenda
Niels ten Oever: (11:04) 13 UTC would be perfect
Matthew Shears: (11:04) will the refining work continue in the google doc?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:04) Matthew, yes, please volunteer
Greg Shatan: (11:04) Link to video I referred to: https://youtu.be/BCoL6JVZHrA
Niels ten Oever: (11:04) imho we need to restructure the google doc
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:04) Niels, all + 1 to restructure
Matthew Shears: (11:04) fine with restructirung but as long as we use the same doc
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:05) Greg, Niels, all who are going to work. I will try to help and I want to but I am very limited in my time. Greg. I will certainly go through the lines about Ruggie.
Matthew Shears: (11:05) + 1 need ONE doc
Aarti Bhavana: (11:05) +1 David
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:05) are there many docs? I see only one Greg sent.
Greg Shatan: (11:05) It is a work in progress. I took more time than I would have liked on editing down the comments section, which didn't leave me much time for the back end of the document, which is really the more important part.
Niels ten Oever: (11:06) Yes!
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:06) 7 am Greg
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:06) i'll be 30 minutes late
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:06) oh 8 am ok
David McAuley: (11:07) Monday, 13:00 UTC sounds fine
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:07) Oh no: I'll need to drop out early!
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:07) So 13.00 ok
Niels ten Oever: (11:11) 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB
Leon Sanchez: (11:12) I like that structure Niels
Matthew Shears: (11:12) + 1
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:12) +1
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:13) Niels, super, we can add fundamental vs. human rights/
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:13) +1 Niels
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:13) Fine with Matthew definition, Greg :) O/
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:14) Greg, I saw that you refined it and thanks for that!
Niels ten Oever: (11:14) It was not a comment on your work at all Greg.
Niels ten Oever: (11:14) Just tried to get some drafting mandate for the group, because we have such little time.
Leon Sanchez: (11:14) @Tatiana I would caution on re-opening issues that have been closed
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:14) Ok Ok
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:14) let's not open it
Leon Sanchez: (11:15) Good! :D
Alice Jansen: (11:15) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bm0NnIq35j3-EwmBwKEjSOJia-c10wv0mhHytngTDiM/edit?usp=sharing
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:15) Greg, Niels, there was a lot written on the language choices when Niels and I drafted the summary of the public comments - we can use this... @Niels, do you have it?
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:15) I can participate from Sunday :)
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:15) Greg awesome
Matthew Shears: (11:15) I will assist
Niels ten Oever: (11:15) It's in the history of the Google Doc that Greg renovated
Niels ten Oever: (11:15) am sure I can find it back
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:15) Matthew, thanks!
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:16) Neils O/
Greg Shatan: (11:16) The current Google doc is a new doc. You'll need to go back to the Google Doc that was the working version for the PC review to see the history.
David McAuley: (11:17) Greg, do you mean the one Alice posted just now - is that the one to work to?
Matthew Shears: (11:17) need to put the link to the old google doc in the new so we have the history
Brett Schaefer: (11:17) Is the aim to have a revised draft for discussionon Monday? The mention of Tuesday seems to be at odds with our schedule.
Greg Shatan: (11:18) I don't think we need to name particular countries to make our points. Even examples can raise unneccessary friction as we saw in the evolution of Stress Test 18.
Greg Shatan: (11:18) Yes, we will have a second draft for Monday -- done
Greg Shatan: (11:18) on late Sunday....
Greg Shatan: (11:19) After call we can do some more work and hopefully have a stable draft for Tuesday.
Brett Schaefer: (11:21) I would only suggest that my suggestion would not require this text.
Brett Schaefer: (11:22) The proposal to add a 12th point to the core values.
David McAuley: (11:22) Our mail load in CCWG is amazing - an amazing amount piled up during this call
Greg Shatan: (11:23) Brett, I think it would require the same thing. Your proposal is little different from the current bylaws language in process.
Greg Shatan: (11:24) I think our outside counsel need to clarify the "hold" status inherent in the transitional bylaw.
David McAuley: (11:24) Agree with Paul - whatever we write could be picked apart by many potential HR claimants
David McAuley: (11:25) Agree @Greg - clear, express, explicit - try to limit interpretation
Brett Schaefer: (11:26) Greg, I think the risk is greater if there is a separate HR bylaw section, that it would be in a list of other values that are specifically identified as guidence.
Greg Shatan: (11:26) We haven't really discussed where to put this Bylaw.
Greg Shatan: (11:27) Whether we put it in the Mission and Core Values or put it elsewhere, the same issues apply.
Greg Shatan: (11:27) Putting it in the M&CV actually raises MORE issues, as Leon is pointing out.
Brett Schaefer: (11:27) WOuldn't any bylaw be subject to IRP?
David McAuley: (11:27) Yes
David McAuley: (11:28) Although WP2 work on IRP not yet final
Greg Shatan: (11:28) M&CV have a particular standing in IRP because they are linked to the issue of fiduciary duty.
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:29) Niels +1
Greg Shatan: (11:29) To the extent human rights principles have been embodied in US laws, ICANN is already subject to them.
Paul Twomey: (11:29) There are at least 3 parties of litigants trying to get ICANN to make mjor moves on TLDs based on various rights etc
Paul Twomey: (11:30) Niels they are active and will continue to look for additional opportunities
David McAuley: (11:30) Absolutely, @Paul - this is an active area
Brett Schaefer: (11:31) If there is this level of concern, why move forward half cocked? just move the entire thing to WS2?
David McAuley: (11:31) Thank you Leon, I will try to as well on the doc that Alice posted
David McAuley 2: (11:33) just got bounced out of adobe and back in
Brett Schaefer: (11:33) It seems silly to write a bylaw and then say pay no attention to it until we know what we really want/mean.
David McAuley 2: (11:34) Thank you Leon and all, and good bye
Markus Kummer: (11:34) Thanks and bye!
Greg Shatan: (11:34) Brett, that is the baby we have split.
David McAuley 2: (11:34) thanks staff - always excellent
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:34) Bye all
Greg Shatan: (11:34) Heroic = foolhardy.
Greg Shatan: (11:34) Bye all!
Tatiana Tropina 2: (11:34) bye all
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:35) thanks, bye
