September 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2_8 September 2016
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2 - 8 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YhKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes Welcome/Admin Tatiana Tropina audio only for the moment. No changes to SOIs. Document: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61608546&preview=/… * Meeting Time Rotation Greg Shatan: will rotate between 1300 and 1900 slots leaving aside the 0500. May vary days of the week but will avoid 1900 on Friday. Kavouss Arasteh: could we shift 1900 to 2000? Bernard Turcotte: Schedule will be reviewed with change to daylight savings later in the fall. * Work Plan and Schedule Overview (attached). Looking to have a deliverable complete in February 2017. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61608546&preview=/… Greg Shatan: This work plan assumes we are a Complex project. Presentation of the slide. Milton Mueller: this schedule seems unrealistic to me. We take 2.5 months to develop a work plan and don't talk substance until December, then we complete our "deliverable" in only one month? David McAuley: We may be able to get into substance by asking participants to contribute to a gap analysis between the accountability framework that is being implemented vs its applicability vs jurisdictions. Greg Shatan: Need a rolling list of action items. The first item should be this gap analysis. Farzaneh Badii: Greg as to gap analysis you say in the doc that: I think there was a general conclusion that ICANN's current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "gaps" relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there is a formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we need to explore. David McAuley: Do not remember any formal gap analysis from WS1. This is about the settlement of disputes jursidiction. Kavouss Arasteh: there was no formal conclusion in WS1 that there was no gap. Kavouss Arasteh: was NOTa general conclusion that ICANN's current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "gaps" relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there is a formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we need to explore. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We had very general discussions - that is what we did... Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): anyway what is on the ws1 final papers is what represents our agreements... David McAuley: agree w/Kavouss re gap - we have to check * Plan to Develop Detailed Work Plan & Schedule * Plan for September/October (see attached) * Suggestions for overall Work Plan * Our Goal is a Deliverable * Discussion of Scope * Do we begin with Scope? * Jordan Carter lightning talk suggested being "upfront about our interests" * Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup) Kavouss Arasteh: Not in favor of Applicable Law? Greg Shatan: no issue since it is in Annex 12. David McAuley: disputes should include legal actions vs ICANN in various jurisdictions? Milton Mueller: so jurisdictional effects on two distinct things: 1) accountability mechanisms; 2) actual operation of policies (whatever that means) And by 2) we are referring primarily to dispute resolution jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): At the same time we said that this refers "primarily" to 1) settlement of disputes, including choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws, what disputes "within ICANN" means could also be useful. Greg Shatan: Within ICANN implies actors within ICANN but it would seem undluly restrictive to say this only includes ICANN's internal dispute resolution processes. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): within ICANN I guess covers all parties affected by ICANN decisions and which may bring an internal claim against it. Kavouss Arasteh: why NOT NECESSARILY? David McAuley: From WS1 recollection the NECESSARILY comes in if the gap analysis notes that the accountability mechanisms are broken (material problem) because of jurisdiction. Edward Morris: My recollection is the same as David's David McAuley: Thanks Kavouss, and I think that is part of our task. Good question you asked. Milton Mueller: I think many of these points could be best pursued on the list, in writing David McAuley: +1 Milton Avri Doria: so ICANN is only incorporated in one place and these lesser 'registrations' do not affect jurisdiction? Registrations and their relation to incorporation are essentially different with respect to jurisdictional obligations? Is so where are jurisdictional issues related to multiple registrations dealt with? Vinay Kesari: Agree with Paul. I think ICANN has gone on record stating specifically that local offices are subject to local laws on issues such as employment. Kavouss Arasteh: best to use both email list and Google doc. As to this question is it not too detailed at this time? Avri Doria: what is the status of the ICANN presence in non-US jurisdiction? Greg Shatan: Action Item - this should be answered by ICANN legal. Samantha Eisner: We have to adhere to laws that allow us to have offices in different locations but I can confirm that we have not incorporated in any other location Samantha Eisner: ICANN typically is a "branch" location or a registered foreign office equivalent Jeff Neuman: I would like to know the difference between "Engagement Centers", "HUBs", "Offices", etc/ Avri Doria: Not incorporated? Also not registered as some sort of company? Jeff Neuman: Is there a way to get those definitions from ICANN staff? Jeff Neuman: I have to admit I never understood Fadi's distinctions Samantha Eisner: Yes, Jeff Greg Shatan: Will start the next version of the google doc and circulate. Vinay Kesari: Hi Avri, many countries (India for example) allow a foreign company to set up a representative/ branch office locally. This is not a separate legal entity, can't sue/ be sued. But it requires a registration * Creation of Scope Document? * Other Potential Inputs to our Work * More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks * Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope) * Experts/Legal Advice * AOB * Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned

3 2

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #3 - 9 Sept
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Transparency Subgroup Meeting #3 - 9 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0gasAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes Transparency Subgroup Meeting #3 Friday, 9 September @ 05:00 UTC Pages: * Main sub-group page: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Transparency * This meeting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605586 1. Welcome * Michael Karanicolas: Apologies Chris Wilson, Alan Greenberg. 2. Final Discussion re Thematic Overview Doc * Michael Karanicolas: New Thematic Overview document posted a few minutes ago (very bad audio, had to quit and will re-connect). * David McAuley: New document vs DIDP is great. Is denial of a DIDP request eligible for Reconsideration or for IRP? If not it is something for consideration. * Michael Karanicolas: great suggestion, also consider if Ombuds should be involved. We also have to consider how our recommendations will dovetail with the other sub-groups. Any other points? Discussion of proactive disclosure. No questions or comments. Discussion of Improvement to the existing whistleblower policy. No questions or comments. Will cautiously assume the document seems acceptable for the moment. Will wait for input from the list. * Avri Doria: Seems a solid starting point. * David McAuley: I expect substantive discussions might expand things on this list a bit 3. Next Steps (Phase 2: Identifying Problems) * Michael Karanicolas: any volunteers for specific sub-areas? * Chris Disspain 2: are we going to have specific discussion threads on the list? * Avri Doria: i think that would be good, and volunteers may serge * Chris Disspain 2: I think that will help develop the topics * David McAuley: +1 Avri and Chris * Chris Disspain 2: and as Avri says volunteers will emerge * Sonigitu Ekpe: Yes * Avri Doria: Have started going through all WS2 tracks for ATRT2 relevant topics and hope to have that soon and could add items to this list. * Michael Karanicolas: But that sounds great - and would be happy to add items to the list as they emerge from your research 4. AOB * Michael Karanicolas: Any other business? No comments. Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6 - 8 Sept
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #6 - 8 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YBKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action ACTION ITEM - draft text of questions based on the bylaws charter for our group (slide on the screen), plus Recc 10 and 12 (also in the slides). Question to ask each SO/AC about their accountability mechanisms pending review of the staff paper Notes Review (brief) of last call #5 and any Action Items / Business Arising? - Reviewed text from Annex 10 and the presenttion to the Plenary to address accountability both internal and external . - External describes as eveyone who is not part of the target constituencies for a community - Need to be careful as to how captureing what is meant in using the term exrernal What are the current SO/AC Accountability mechanisms? - Continued discussion of who are we accountable to - Need to formulate the question to gather information regarding accountability and then will send to the SO/AC leadership for discussion within their groups ? How do we interpret "working plan" for enhancing SO/AC Accountability - Asking for comments and ideas as to what the plan should entail - SO/AC Accountability per WS2 Bylaw review and develop ... to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report: (iii) Supporting Organization and Advisory Commitee accountability, including but not limited to improved processes for accountability, transparency, andparticipationn that are helpful to prevent capture - review and develop are key terms question noted regarding review ACTION ITEM - draft text of questions based on the bylaws charter for our group (slide on the screen), plus Recc 10 and 12 (also in the slides). Question to ask each SO/AC about their accountability mechanisms pending review of the staff paper Next call is on 15 Sept at 1300 UTC

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #4 | 6 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #4 - 6 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/DRKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc * Cheryl Langdon-Orr currently only on phone. * Nigel Roberts Excused. * No changes to SOIs. 2. Discussion on: the Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… * Tatiana Tropina: document essentially completed. * David McAuley: I just lost my phone - will change - in meantime I was present in WP4 and have read document Tanya is speaking about and have no issue with it, * Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with those on the list who have remarked that the definition of "respect" is a very important part of developing this FOI. * Niels ten Oever: Comments on the document as is? * Kavouss Arasteh: We should never approve anything in one meeting especially given this short notice. * Niels ten Oever: We will leave the document open for comments in the coming week and seek approval at our next meeting if there are no significant issues. 3. Discussion on: Concerns on possible impacts of Human Rights bylaw and FoI https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KcKGRJjuhKEzCh2AZ8PPR_MofOQFBN8CMuJqTG_… * Niels ten Oever: Paul Twomey is still unavailable and as such the document has not advanced much. * Greg Shatan: We need to have a plan as to how to add to this document and organize it. * Kavouss Arasteh: Can we have the document on the screen. We seem to still be struggling with respect vs enforcement. * Andrew Mack: same concerns as KA. * Tatiana Tropina: the bylaws clearly state we cannot put in enforcement or protection. Some parts of Ruggie go to enforcement. * jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As the Ruggie principles are recognized as a standard, we would need to clearly explain when and why we would diverge from them in this in the FoI * Greg Shatan: We have to be careful not to stumble into default enforcement. * Kavouss Arasteh: Need to avoid enforcement. * David McAuley: I agree with GS and TT. If we develop something we are not developing policy we are interpreting the bylaws which requires us to RESPECT Internationally recognized HR - this is very specific. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: There is no mention of enforcement in the remit of WS2 for HR. this would be widening the scope and is not acceptable. * Tatiana Tropina: Greg, I wonder if there is a transcript. We agreed in the WS1 to treat Ruggie with care but it seems that it comes up again and again. So may be finding the discussion makes the things easier (I am afraid to use the word "easy" now) * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree that we are here for an "interpretation" exercise, not a policy development * Greg Shatan: Thanks, Niels. I see it is an implementation for FIFA. How ironic. * Markus Kummer: +1 - for sure. But we have to analyze why and where the Ruggie Principles don't apply to ICANN. * Tatiana Tropina: Niels, ICANN is not like other non-profit too. there is already the cctld debate on the doc - as one of the points * David McAuley: We should not assume that the Ruggie principles will be included in an HR FOI until we all agree on which parts apply. * Tatiana Tropina: Completely agree. Need to wait for Paul Twomey who has significant experience with the Ruggie principals. * Tatiana Tropina: Markus, exactly. One of the points I already voiced - in my opinion they do go to enforcement and protection (Ok, mitigation and remedies) and many of these ICANN can't do * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): The Mission sets the limits to ICANN actions - insofar ccTLDs are concerned, ICANNs role is very limited * Anne Aikman-Scalese: Unfortunately the Ruggie definition of "respect" appears to implicate ICANN in content regulation. * Markus Kummer: +1 David * Kavouss Arasteh: If we are to include the Ruggie principles it should be a consensus of this group. * David McAuley 2: +1 Tanya, and Paul Twomey's insights as a prior ICANN CEO will be quite helpful * Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): It would certainly see Paul Twomey's comments again and consider them in light of the wording given to the commitment in the new Bylaws (...as a "core value") * Tatiana Tropina: Ruggie shall be out unless we decide they are in... Agree that we shall not discuss for a long time about their applicability since we decided not to commit to them :) * Greg Shatan: Agree with DM and TT that Ruggie principles are out until they are in. Given the lack of other input we need to find alternatives? or do we have to start from scratch. If we do start from scratch, then we have to give a nod to the Ruggie principles. FIFA definition of respect seems very active and bordering on enforcement? * Kavouss Arasteh: we should not discuss Enforce or Protect going forward. * Niels ten Oever: we should look at the Ruggie principles. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: Participants should look at the Ruggie principles and given their input on the list as to what is applicable and what is not. * Niels ten Oever: we need to analyze the Ruggie Principles to see how they could apply, or not, to ICANN. Who would take on doing the first cut of the analysis? * Tatiana Tropina: Hm, Niels, no, I think co-chairs shall put the doc on and then we all comment * Tatiana Tropina: I don't think there would be a lack of comments! Rather I perceive an unreadable mess * Niels Ten Oever: PM and TT on point for this. Everyone should familiarize themselves with the Ruggie principles before the meeting next week. 4. Discussion on FoI draft document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUO… * Niels ten Oever: Mostly covered in the previous point and on the list. As such we shall skip this point today. 5. AOB * Niels ten Oever: review of agenda for the next meeting. * Kavouss Arasteh: Can we have an updated version of the plan and when there are meetings schedule. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: Please send links and documents on the list so everyone can familiarize themselves with those documents for our next meeting. * Niels ten Oever: Adjourned.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #5 | 6 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup Meeting #5 - 6 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/rBGsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (BT): September 6th, 2016 - 5th meeting 1. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome - Opening Remarks (5 min SBT & Staff) * * Sebastien Bachollet: welcome to the 5th meeting. 2. Discuss the following chapters of the document (45 min)https://docs.google.com/document/d/192SDRXsnr5ujf1iVj4hj_WMf3fMmYiEhY1u… - Dependencies between the sub-groups * * Sebastien Bachollet: Listing of liaisons. - ATRT2 * * Avri Doria: Presentation of ATRT2 recommendation to defer Ombudsman work listed for ATRT2 to CCWG WS2 Ombudsman. * Farzaneh Badii - Whistle blower vs Ombudsman? Should we analyze the ATRT2 recommendations to find what is relevant to us? * Avri Doria: on the Whistle Blower or other internal staff issues the Ombuds has no role currently - this keeps being discussed as to if there is a need to change this. This group should not look at the whistle blower policy as this is for the transparency sub-group but should look at the wider issue of the Ombuds vs staff issues. I will prepare a list of issues for this group from ATRT2 recommendations. * Sebastien Bachollet: action item: Avri Doria should send a document listing the Ombuds related recommendations from ATRT1 and 2. * Avri Doria: will start a Google Drive document listing specific texts from those reports. * Herb Waye Ombuds: It would be good to include the link to the independent review that was conducted for ATRT1 Avri - Stress Tests * * Sebastien Bachollet: Have extracted relevant Stress Test from WS1 and have found 2: 13 and 34. * Farzaneh Badii: Can the Ombuds accept complaints vs a constituency? * Herb Waye: There is no such limitation. The Ombuds can be very accommodating. We are about process and not about decisions such as IRP etc. * Herb Waye Ombuds: It would be good to include the link to the independent review that was conducted for ATRT1 Avri * Mike Silber: Can we see the contribution before a decision is made as to whether it is included or not? I don't think that is the prerogative of the rapporteur, but of the group * Asha Hemrajani: But Herb, there is nothing that says that a dispute between members of different SO/ACs cannot be brought in front of you * Herb Waye: will look at the case files to see how requests which could block a policy decision have been dealt with. * Sebastien Bachollet: will check with Cheryl and Steve if there are examples related to this. - Current role of the ICANN Ombuds Office * Sebastien Bachollet: wanted to go over inclusion of the Ombudsman in PTI. any comments or information on this. * Herb Waye: action Item - will check on this next week. * Asha Hemrajani: it would be good to have the role of the Ombuds explicitly defined for PTI. * General discussion on enforceability. * Herb Waye Ombuds: No Jimson the ombuds can only make recommendations * Asha Hemrajani: @Jimson, we discussed that last time - no, not enforceable * Asha Hemrajani: they are recommendations * Jimson Olufuye: Ok, thanks! * Jimson Olufuye: Clear, thanks. * Farzaneh Badii: as a principle mediation does not yield to enforceable outcome in court. unless there is a settlement agreement * Farzaneh Badii: *unless * Farzaneh Badii: how would ombudsman enforce a resolution? it does not have a enforcement power! * Asha Hemrajani: Yes I am talking about a settlement agreement * Herb Waye: the Ombuds could not enforce. * Farzaneh Badii: ombudsman cannot be an enforcement body * Asha Hemrajani: Thanks Herb...the question then is if the ombuds brokers a mediation settlement in ICANN, who helps to enforce that agreement * Edward Morris: If we want that then it's something different than an Ombudsman. * Karel Douglas: To make the Ombudsman recommendations into enforceable decisions would be to change the Ombudsman into a tribunal type body which would change its function * Karel Douglas: It would be a radical move away from the concept of what an ombudsman does * Edward Morris: There are some cases that may be more appropriate for an IRP , including the CEP, than for an Ombudsman complaint. Perhaps those disputes where enforcement could be problematic or foreseen as such should be sent to other accountability processes from the start. Goodwill is a key component of any Ombudsman process. * Herb Waye: results of mediation is very different vs a recommendation to the Board following a the results of a complaint. 3. Next Meeting 12 Sept @ 19:00 UTC (5 min) * * Asha Hemrajani: Can we have a doodle poll on the time of the calls? 1900UTC inconvenient for me. * Sebastien Bachollet: Staff are not doing doodles for the sub-groups. Also note that all three time slots for this call are well attended. * Asha Hemrajani: Bernard can we have a doodle on this? * Bernard Turcotte: Can do if requested by a Board member. * Sebastien Bachollet: If this is the case I can no longer be responsible for the timing of the calls. Please advise when the next call will be. 4. AOB (5 min)

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #5 - 1 Sept
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for WS2 SO/AC Accountability Subgroup Meeting #5 - 1 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XRKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Call Admin and Roll Call / Apologies (2min- Staff) Cheryl Langdon-Orr audio only 2. Welcome - Opening Remarks (3min- SDB, FB, CLO) * Steve DelBianco: There was no clear decision on SO/AC accountability question at the CCWG plenary on last Tuesday. Will present the slides presented at the plenary. (presentation of slides https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284&preview=/… ) * Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ccNSO has always sought non-member participantion. Other SOACs may also have other interesting and unique mechanisms they use. * Farzaneh Badii: 2 questions are who are we accountable to and what are we accountable for. * Steve DelBianco: We know SO's are responsible to their members per the Bylaws - what we are looking at is do we need to increase this accountability. * Christopher Wilkinson: The Bylaws are clear. What we are talking about is the accountability of the delegates of the SOACs in the new Empowered Community. The incremental new accountability in the new accountability scheme in ICANN. * Farzaneh Badii: the MAR could be used as a soft approach to share best practices. Given there are no other questions let us move to the next agenda item. * Matthew Shears: the issue of scope has to be agreed - Christopher's approach (I understand) seeks to look at what the new accountability requirements post transition, but others, including myself, believe that this is about the accountability of SOs and ACs generally, not just post transition 3. Review (brief) of last call #3 and any Action Items / Business Arising (5 min- SDB, FB) (skipped) 4. Discussion (25 min) - To whom are the SO/ACs accountable to - What are the SO/ACs accountable for - Discuss Matt's suggestion to start from track three: "Develop a detailed working plan on enhancing SO and AC accountability taking into consideration the comments made during the public comment period on the Third Draft Proposal." Googledoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTRZZJ9B3Q6BHP6AlDHmoiep8NeshNpomBNM4bB… * Mathew Shears: accountability has 4 dimensions: Transparency, Consultation, Review, Redress. We should consider this when considering how to scope our work. MAR may be a distraction, we should start with the workplan. * Steve DelBianco: Appendix C contains a number of elements for ICANN when we began the work on WS1 and it may not be reasonable to think we should apply this to SOACs. * Mathew Shears: agree Steve. But we have addressed and resolved some of these criteria in WS1 and see if they could apply although many may not apply. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mathew Shear's suggestion has meritt to explore these aspects and should be pursued. This could provide the basis for several sections of our report. * Steve DelBianco: Our charter says Review and Develop and we have to do the reviews to identify gaps. If you have criteria ahead of time it makes it easier to identify those potential gaps. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If we actually capture what is going on now and compare it will be very useful. * Athina Fragkouli: These should not be hard criteria - more points of reference. * Mathew Shears: We need to work with the SO and ACs if we are going to succeed. * Steve Delbianco: If members from the SO and ACs could come back at the next meeting to present the accountability mechanisms in each of these which are NOT in the Bylaws. 5. AOB / Next Meeting (5min) * Steve DelBianco: Adjourned.

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #3 | 30 August
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Resources Subgroup Meeting #3 -30 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CxKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc * Dan Appleman phone only * Nigel Roberts - excuses. 2. Discussion on: the Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… * Tatiana Tropina: no progress this week. Will simply add the text from the WS1 Final report. * Niels ten Oever: Hope to complete this document next week. 3. Discussion on: Concerns on possible impacts of Human Rights bylaw and FoI https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KcKGRJjuhKEzCh2AZ8PPR_MofOQFBN8CMuJqTG_… * Niels ten Oever: Given the sad news from Paul Twomey there has been no progress as expected. It would be great if we could keep adding concerns to this doc. * Tatiana Tropina: I have been going through teh records on the calls and chats to put them into the concerns doc but I am waiting for Paul because he was supposed to lead this one. but once Paul is back I will be ready with info :) 4. Discussion on: FoI draft document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUO… * Niels ten Oever: Should the Framework be a core value? We should ask this of ICANN legal as to what the implications of being core value imply. does nayone have an issue with this - no. * Paul McGrady: Seems like we would want to ask the community that, rather than the lawyers. * Tatiana Tropina: So basically you want to ask ICANN legal about this as a starting point for our further discussion? * Kavous Arateh: views of lawyers should not be priveleged, everyone has input. * Anne Aikman-Scalese: have no issue with asking ICANN legal. Still unclear what a human rights policy vs policy development activities in ICANN. Would such a human rights policy imply that ICANN would have to make a human rights assessment of the propose registry before contracting to delegate a TLD? * Niels ten Oever: you should include these in the document. * Tatiana Tropina: ICANN legal added the term core value and we should ask them why they did so. * Niels ten Oever: any views on this? * Paul McGrady: Agree. I'd like to know why they made that unilateral change, but I don't think we need them to define "core" for us. * Farzaneh Badii: Let us find out who suggested using Core Value. * Daniel Appelman: I disagree with separating policy from operations. That would weaken any human rights commitment we recommend as a policy matter. Operations should be consistent with policy. * Niels Ten Oever: Will ask staff to pass on this question to ICANN legal - ACTION ITEM. Niels ten Oever: Question to ICANN legal: '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? * Niels Ten Oever: What is meant by International Human Rights? I have pasted several refernces in the document which could help with this. * Tatiana Tropina: Uncertain that these instruments which are applicable to states are not applicable to ICANN. They can help shape of things for ICANN. * Kavous Arasteh: We should go through these and see which parts could apply to ICANN. * Tatiana Tropina: I think Kavouss misunderstood me Of course we should go through them I was clear about this. I am more than up for going through all the conventions. * Anne Aikman-Scalese: to what parts of ICANN should Human rights apply? It would certainly include awarding a TLD. We should identify policies and procedures and activities in ICANN which would be subject to HR. * Paul McGrady: starting with the principles and then look at how they apply is my approach - but we should end up in the same place. * Markus Kummer: The Board was very worried about unintended consequences. the baseline for ICANN will probably remain the Rugge principals and which ones apply and see where we can go from there. * Avri Doria: an explicit exhaustive list of operations? * Anne Aikman-Scalese: @AVri - no - just certain test examples - how do Human Rights principles apply to specific activities of ICANN - a practical application of principles in certain examples of ICANN's operations. * Tatiana Tropina: I think there has been some job done on this at the CCWP on human rights which might be interesting to look at, Niels, do you have anything to share on this? * Matthew Shears: I would turn that around Ann and suggest that we need to look at ICANN's operations and determine very realistically and cautiously what might apply or not. * Matthew Shears: this should not be about trying to see what fits - but rather what is appropriate - measured against other orgs and institutions perhaps * Farzaneh Badii: What we need to consider what is in ICANN's scope. Does this imply that there are going to be contractual provisions for Human Rights in registry agreements? I think the ICANN responsability stops at the string level (unclear what is meant by string level). * Kavous Arasteh: Seems chair is unfair in analysing comments by particpants. * Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Niels - I think the document you linked presupposes a negative impact on Human Rights in all cases. For example, it states that there is a "right to use all words and names in domain names". There is actually no such right and the entire scheme of trademark protection for the new gTLDs demonstrates the balancing of freedom of expression against the right of the artistic community to protect its artistic creations. This is Article 19 versus Article 27 UDHR balancing. ARticle 27 says: (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. * Niels ten Oever: We will discuss this on the list. We should go on to the issue of Applicable Law. Do we want to relay this to the Jurisdiction sub-group. * Kavouss Arasteh: Leave to the Jurisdiction sub-group., * Niels ten Oever: Will contact Jursidiction to advise we will wait on their results regarding this. * Anne Aikman-Scalese 2: ICANN Legal should be asked what Human Rights Law is applicable to ICANN operations. * Niels ten Oever: 2. 'What Human Rights Laws and/or Guidelines is or are applicable to which ICANN operations.' * Anne Aikman-Scalese 2: should this be tgwo separate questions. Which laws and then guidelines. * Daniel Appelman: Getting the views of legal counsel is ok; but our own work this week should be to think about all relevant ICANN operations and activities and then discuss what human rights are implicated by them. Via mailing list and comments in the document. 5. AOB

1 0