- Accountability-Cross-Community

SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - draft report for plenary on 10-Mar-2017
by Steve DelBianco March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

To our CCWG colleagues: Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC Accountability group of Work Stream 2. Our group looks forward to your questions and comments when we meet in Copenhagen. Regards, Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2 Executive Summary: The SO/AC Accountability project for Work Stream 2 had its genesis at an early stage of the CCWG-Accountability track, when SO/AC representatives insisted on new powers to hold the ICANN corporation accountable to the global internet community. ICANN board members and staff then asked, “What about SO/AC accountability?“ And as one of our independent experts asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Those questions led to a creation of a Work Stream 2 project to review and recommend improvements to accountability, transparency, and participation within ICANN SOs, ACs, and Subgroups. This draft report reflects several months of research and deliberation, starting with exploration of to whom ICANN ACs and SOs are accountable. On that question, our working group reached quick consensus: each AC and SO is accountable to the segment of the global internet community that each AC/SO was designated to represent in the ICANN Bylaws. This conclusion was the basis for Track 1 of our work: reviewing accountability, transparency, and participation with respect to the designated community of each SO/AC and Subgroup. We were keen to examine the extent to which SO/AC/Subgroups were reaching out to, and open to, members of their designated community who were not yet participating. In Track 1 we recommend 25 “best practices” that should be considered by each SO/AC/Subgroup, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We are not recommending changes to the ICANN bylaws to reflect these best practices, although we believe that future Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) should examine implementation of these best practices among AC/SO/Subgroups. In Track 2, we considered the suggestion for a “Mutual Accountability Roundtable,” originally described as a concept where “multiple actors are accountable to each other”. That concept clashed with the fundamental consensus that ICANN SOs and ACs are only accountable to the designated community they were created to serve and represent. On this basis, we recommend that a Mutual Accountability Roundtable not be formally implemented by ICANN. Track 3 was where we assessed whether the new Independent Review Process (IRP) should also become a tool to challenge AC and SO activities. On this question, we conclude that while the IRP could be made applicable by amending bylaws significantly, the IRP should not be made applicable to SO & AC activities, because it is complex and  expensive, and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an AC or SO action or inaction.

1 0

Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #11_ 2 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Staff Accountability Subgroup Meeting #11 – 2 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/OZ-RAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D29410.DAEC9110] Notes including relevant portions of the chat): 10 Participants at start of call Avri Doria – Only item on the agenda is the review of the note from JC. Jordan Carter – (presentation of document) Avri Doria – do we have the issues right? Any comments? Cheryl Landon-Orr – articulation of the two primary issues is fine but doubt the plenary will have any wisdom for us. George Sadowsky – Issue 1 – you have a short term problem in establishing effective communication with staff – there may be a longer term problem. The short term problem can be solved but if there is a longer term one you are correct to raise it. Alan Greenberg – Agree with GS – Said differently this group having great difficulty in working with staff is indicative of the great difficulties we as volunteers in the community very often have in working with staff is VERY indicative. Jordan Carter – Do not see this as a lack of support – but this is different than the usual working method of volunteers developing a paper and then working with staff – here we have to work with staff during the development. This is an unusual way of working and calling it out may help get what we need. Avri Doria – Does not really capture the issues some groups are having with staff – and because people fear retaliation so do not want to formally provide input on this. Alan Greenberg – JC description how it should work is overly simplistic – a lot of the other things we do in working with staff trying to make things work overall requires a more interactive and collegial process which does not always happen. Greg Shatan: Alan's discussion highlights the kind of "deeper dive" we need to do as we narrow our focus from the meta-analysis of the first iteration. Jordan Carter: yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Jeff Neuman – Finally I can say we will publicly release a letter we have sent to the ICANN Board as a follow up to an original letter in December – we will not release the original given there are name cited in it – however the second letter contains principles and recommendations. Avri Doria – Maybe we need a 1A and 1B on how to work effectively. Jordan Carter – do not think so. Avri Doria – Any comments on the second point? George Sadowsky – Pleased to see how this is phrased and reflects the conversation of the last meeting. Suggest we use the issues that have come in the course of this work and what can be used to solve these things as they come up – this is pretty close to that. Jordan Carter: "Proposes solutions to resolve those problems or mechanisms that could resolve them as they arise from time to time". This should probably capture this. George Sadowsky – I like it. Specific complaints that have been made could be used in stress tests to see if the solutions work. Jordan Carter: the effect of the change would be, overall, to get us focused on the issues raised or identified, and solutions, or ways to prevent recurrence Jordan Carter: (the change of scope, that is) Avri Doria – Any other comments? (none) Jordan Carter: thanks all Jordan Carter: great feedback Jordan Carter: it feels like a more solid direction to be going Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): all good Avri Doria – any other points or comments (none). JC and I will finalize this document to send in to the plenary.

1 0

Staff Accountability subgroup - material for plenary on 10 March
by Jordan Carter March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Hi all Please find attached two documents: - a short and important request for input from the CCWG on the shape of the Staff Accountability subgroup's work - a long and working draft of one of our two documents. (It's a messy working draft with lots of comments and tracked changes, and may be most readable in the native google doc. That's linked in the first doc. *We really need your thinking caps on for the two issues in the request for input - we need to get creative about how to make our work more on point and achievable.* On the second document, we really need to get a broader set of eyes and views involved, but depending on the discussion on the shorter document the longer one may change fundamentally. Avri and I, and all the subgroup members, are looking forward to the discussion in Copenhagen. thanks Jordan co-Rapporteur, staff acct subgroup, CCWG WS2 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan(a)InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz *A better world through a better Internet*

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for SOAC Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 02 MAR 17
by MSSI Secretariat March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 SO/AC Subgroup Meeting #23 – 02 MAR 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/3qDRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&…> ________________________________ Notes Notes: 8 Participants at start of call. 0. Call Administration Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Seun audio only. any updates to SOIs? (none). Any changes to agenda? (none). 1. Review of any AI's from call #21 on February 16th Cheryl Langdon-Orr - asked for more contributions to the documents. Thanks to all for those. 2. Any Updates: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ? (none). Plenary met a few hours ago and would encourage all who did not attend to listen to the recordings. 3. Discussion, current DRAFT documentations, readings and review. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Looking for polishing contributions. Looking forward to submitting the report for 3 March so it can have a first reading on 10 March. a) Data Capture documentation of input materials from SOAC's Farzaneh Badii - there is nothing new in this document and it has been included in the consolidated document by SDB. b) Review and discuss (as 1st reading for the WT) the Consolidated Draft Report Steve DelBianco - As promised the consolidated document was distributed on Monday with V1.0. 24 hours ago we generated a V1.1 version. NPOC members have been updating the document but not all there comments are consistent between themselves - so this seems to be their contribution if they have not answered the questionnaire. Only two left have not answered RySG and RSSAC. SB asked where he shoud focus Ombudsman related issues and have pointed him to the relevant sections. The most important part for this group is to come to consensus on the recommendations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would be doing the Consolodated doc in reverse to ensure the leat discussed part get more time for discussion, but I see that is 'just me' Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): At least 2 of the three threads have been well covered in the oast so we should be ;-) able to cover those off almost 'pro forma' Steve DelBianco - Any general comments? (none). Going through the recommendations (starting page 9). Alan Greenberg - Should document may be best to say SHOULD CONSIDER DOCUMENTING given it may not be applciable to all those groups. Steve DelBianco - The word CONSIDER is included earlier in the text and could be added in each recommendation. Could also include WHERE APPLICABLE (support no objection). Farzaneh Badii - Re AG points - challenging results of the election is fine but DECISONS seems much too broad. Steve DelBianco - These were the questions used in the questionnaire and the SOACs have responded to. given we are including WHERE APPLICABLE would allow an out anyways. Farzaneh Badii: that’s fine then Tatiana Tropina: Same concerns as FB and AG - maybe we can ask them WHICH decisions can be challenged. It’s up to SOACs to decide which ones can be and clearly document this. On the second recommendation - have to be clear it is WHERE APPLICABLE. Steve DelBianco - (repeating the caveats in front of every recommendation). Aan Greenberg: do not share cocnerns of FB and TT because of the caveats and lets not wordsmith this now. Farzaneh Badii: but then they might cherry pick Farzaneh Badii: and say it's not applicable here or there Tatiana Tropina: Oh this is it. I meant type of decisions and Alan means processes Steve DelBianco - next transparency on page 13 - 6 recommendations that have been well discussed. Comments? Farzaneh Badii - re rec. 6 all comments including correspondence - Steve DelBianco - this is current practice and making it a best practice. Alan Greenberg - there is some correspondence that is confidential and cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - seeking input on this to fix. Onto participation page 19 - 6 recommendations. (no comments). Onto outreach. Alan Greenberg - Re rec 4 - are minutes and or recordings of closed meeting should be accessible to members? Steve DelBianco - correct. Alan Greenberg - again we need exceptions - sometimes the ALAC discusses individuals for nominations and this cannot be published. Steve DelBianco - will add subject to exceptions and confidential matters. Onto Outreach recommendations page 23 - 5 recommendations. (no comments). Last section Update to procedures 1 recommendation on page 25. Farzaneh Badii - Outreach groups have to be small or you cannot decide anything. Seun Ojedeji: do not agree on putting a size comment in. Steve DelBianco - insert something along the lines of "appropriate size'. On to tract 2 Mutual Accountability Table - our conclusion is it is not recommended for formal implementation. Any objections to this recommendation (none). Onto Tract 3 - Does IRP apply to SOAC activities (page 29) - is not applicable and should not be made applicable. Any objections (none). Will take these comments and circulate a new version in the next few days. Alan Greenberg - there will be minor updates to my contribution but these should not be critical if they do not make it into the first reading document. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Second reading of this document will be made on the 2 March call. Important to have good participation. Action Item - Would ask everyone to go through the document when they get it and have proper comments for the call. Also if you will be present at the face to face please advise. Farzaneh Badii: I will send reminders to the list to read the doc 4. Next Meeting and future Meeting schedule • 02 March @ 05:00 UTC • 10 March full day CCWG F2F at ICANN58 Copenhagen • Other dates and times after CPH Meeting will be arranged by staff TBC 5. AOB and review of any AI's. (none). Adjourned.

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #15 - 2 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #15 on 2 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/OYPRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2934B.4C2A3330] Action Items: · DM to confirm to IOT when he would be available to meet members of the IOT in Copenhagen. · MH to summarize discussions on Timing point and post to the list for further discussion. · DM to summarize discussions on Parties and Joinder points and post to the list for further discussion. Notes (including relevant parts of the chat): 10 Participants at start if call 1. Administrivia a. Roll - no audio only b. SoI (none) 2. Considering Comments: David McAuley - Our job is becoming largely advisory wrt to the panel. However, the rules are our decisional role. Will try to get some space at ICANN 58 for a few hours so we can talk about this - will post a note to the group regarding. Avri Doria: what is the purpose of these private meetings? David McAuley - just making myself available to help people with analyzing the comments. Action Item: DM to confirm to IOT when he would be available to meet members of the IOT in Copenhagen. ii. Upcoming calls 10 (plenary), 23 and 30 March 3. Comments – Substantive discussions: David McAuley - we had provided a question to Sidley and they had confirmed there was a problem with the Timing issue. Since then MH has taken on looking at this issue. Over to MH for a discussion on the issue. Kavouss Arasteh - when we review the comments however the number of comments - does it justify changing our recommendation which were approved by the plenary. David McAuley - Note wrt to timing counsel has noted there is a timing so we have to consider this. the point is we consider the comments and respond to them - it does not mean that we have to agree with them. Malcolm Hutty - My understanding is different from KA - the plenary only approved that we should put this out for public comment and not they approved the USP. So we need to go through these. Kavouss Arasteh - This is the responsibility of approval by the CCWG-Accountability so how will we manage this? David McAuley - we are not a a sub-group of the CCWG-Accountability. David McAuley: I agree w/Malcolm on this part a. Timing for claim filing Malcolm Hutty - (review of MH document on this). Kavouss Arasteh - irrespective of if we agree to change this - I have never heard of a process that has no time limit like taxes - we should agree that the option of no limit is off the table. Malcolm Hutty - there have been two comments that we put a moratorium on this and publish without a limit for now and re-evaluate later. If we were to go with that - how would we do this - one way could be to remove any numerical time bar and say it is the responsibility of the Panel. Third option - no moratorium - we need a revised time bar that is consistent with the Bylaws which can be defended. (first option is not any time limit). So, the first question is do we put this off or not. Becky Burr - when you are talking about no time period - are we talking about repose or time to file? KA is correct that there is always a time limit like a statute of limitations. Malcolm Hutty - (the Business Constituency text on moratorium) so more than just about the repose. If we accept this we can stop this now - if not we need to go on. David McAuley - I would be opposed to what the proposal of a moratorium - a time limit which typically ensues for courts or ... Can we cur through this to say there is a time bar but the panel could rule that a claim could be brought beyond these time bars for reasons? Malcolm Hutty - this would handle most of the concerns. But would not satisfy the bias question. Becky Burr 2: I would be willing to dispense with an absolute repose, but very uncomfortable without a "statute of limitations" commencing from a knows or should have known standard Becky Burr 2: 6 months from the time you know or should know that you have/will be harmed Becky Burr 2: plus David's fundamental fairness caveat Kavouss Arasteh - not in favour of DM's proposal. I would suggest the we do the reverse of what is recommended by the Business Community - pick a time and promise to review within two years based on actual issues. Malcolm Hutty - KA proposal could be considered as being against the Bylaws in a legal opinion. Becky Burr 2: if we take this approach we need to consider how the CEP process affects/extends the filing deadline and greatly extends the timeline Becky Burr 2: please also my comments are made in my personal capacity and I am not speaking for the Board or ICANN David McAuley - We are going to have to work these issues on the list. I would ask that MH summarize this for the list so we can kick off those discussions. Kavouss Arasteh - if we propose a new approach we will have to go back to public comment - do not like the idea of doing something completely new. Action Item: MH to summarize discussions on Timing point and post to the list for further discussion. b. Parties – Joinder, etc David McAuley - (presentation of DM paper). Kavouss Arasteh - retroactive application of rules - there is no logic in this. This will bring instability to the process. David McAuley - KA this is specified in the Bylaws but I will mention your point in my summary. Action Item: DM to summarize discussions on Parties and Joinder points and post to the list for further discussion. 4. AOB (none) David McAuley - reminder to everyone to keep an eye on the list and participate. Adjourned

2 1

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Meeting-FaceToFace-20170310 Reminder of submission dealine
by Bernard Turcotte March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

All, Simply a friendly reminder that any text to be considered by the plenary for input is due in just over 24 hours (23:59UTC 3 March). This date is for topics that require plenary input. Update presentations can be submitted later but staff would ask that you do so by 23:59 8 March to allow staff to build the various presentation documents. Thank You Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2

1 0

TR: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17
by Mathieu Weill March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear Colleagues, During the last plenary, we had agreed to reach out to Icann Finance in order to better understand how to proceed with requesting an extension of our timeline. Please find below the response we have received from Xavier Calvez. In addition, Xavier has kindly clarified that the draft operating plan & budget to be published soon will not include any extension of support for our group, until we formally submit a request, which seems a reasonable approach to me. He also informed us that the allocation of staff support resources for our group beyond FY17 may affect ICANN’s ability to support some of the planned review teams in FY18. This is very important to keep in mind during our discussions and when we reach out to the SO/ACs. We will discuss our next steps during the Copenhagen F2F. Best Thomas, Leon & Mathieu De : Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Envoyé : mercredi 1 mars 2017 00:29 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : 'Bernard Turcotte'; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; 'ACCT-Staff'; Becky Nash; Theresa Swinehart Objet : Re: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17 Dear Mathieu, Thank for your question, and for seeking our input on this topic. Apologies for the delayed response. Our expectation of the process required is as follows. Some of the information required that is described below may already be available. Step 1: define the revised work plan of WS2, as extended into FY18 - List of subgroups active during FY18 - Milestones by subgroup, with timeline in FY18 - Number of face-to-face meetings if any - Estimate of legal or other advice if any - Estimate of language services (translation notably) if any The above will enable the PCST to produce an estimated impact of the extension. Please note that the extension would impact the Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget (“OP&B”), as well as the WS2 budget. As an illustration, the current assumption in the Draft FY18 OP&B is that WS2 will be completed as planned by June 2017, and therefore the ICANN staff currently supporting the WS2 work is allocated to other activities in FY18. Step 2: submit the extension request to the Chartering Organization, with appropriate rationale, inclusive of budgetary impact (resulting from Step 1 above), and obtain approval from all Chartering Organizations. Step 3: Inform the Board Finance Committee (should probably happen in parallel of Step 2). Step 4: Suggestion: submit the request for extension of WS2 as a public comment to the Draft FY18 OP&B. This would allow the CCWG to have a transparent record of the request and of its impact on the FY18 OP&B, and provide to the ICANN staff a transparent channel to offer an answer. It would also help ensure that the budgetary impact of the request for extension is linked to the OP&B process. The public comment period for the Draft FY18 OP&B begins 7 March and concludes 28 April. Step 5: If and when approval from the Chartering Organizations is obtained, a formal budgetary request should be made to ICANN, so that it is considered by ICANN Staff and the funding required, if any, is identified, and submitted for approval by the BFC. If this step would occur before the FY18 OP&B has been finalized (by early June) for Board approval (by end of June), then the Board would approve the FY18 OP&B with this request included (presuming funding has been identified). If this step would occur after the FY18 OP&B has been finalized, the Board would need to approve this request separately. Note that the CCWG should consider whether a consultation of the broader community on the request to extend the WS2 should occur or not, formally or not. It is not clear to me yet whether Step 4 would constitute such consultation. Your views would be welcome on this question. I hope this helpful, and I am happy to answer any further question you may have on the above. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348 From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 7:02 AM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, 'ACCT-Staff' <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, Becky Nash <becky.nash(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] PCST / CCWG-Accountability extension beyond FY17 Dear Xavier, Dear PCST, During its plenary meeting on 8 February (https://community.icann.org/x/56jDAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> ), the CCWG-Accountability approved the following action items : • Co-chairs to discuss with PCST the possibility of using remainder of community budget for the next fiscal year. • Co-chairs to prepare communication with chartering organizations regarding potential extension It appears, as you will certainly have noticed through our regular dashboards, that our current approximate level of progress is 33%, 7 months after the launch in Helsinki. While some sub groups are making solid progress, other discussions have required more time, and we need to account for one or even two public comment period for each of them. As such, our group will probably request an extension by a year (all through FY18). At this point, we do not foresee the costs under our “budget ownership” to exceed the budget initially estimated. Our intent is not to request any allocation of extra funds, but only to shift into FY17 what would not have been expensed during FY17. Consistent with the above decisions, we are turning to you and the PCST to inform you about this upcoming request for extension, and to seek your advice about the process we should follow in order to submit the request, not only to the Chartering Organizations, but also into ICANN’s budgetary planning process. Please let us know if you need a call to discuss this. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 1 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #22 – 21 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CKPRAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D292D8.89D1E070] Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Notes (including relevant parts of the chat): 15 participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - any modifications? (none). Kavouss Arasteh (15 minutes into the call) - lodging complaint about trouble being completed. Also, please speak slowly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was only just connected to audio/phone as well Kavouss there were obviously complications 3. Administration (5 minutes) 3.1. Questions to ICANN Legal – Status of Legal Committee Greg Shatan - Leon Sanchez has forwarded our questions to CCWG-Acct Legal comm. 3.2. Hypotheticals document – Propose suspending the work until ICANN Legal responds to the questions. Parminder - this is a slightly different than what has been asked but they may be sequential. Greg Shatan - any other comments? (none). Documents will remain open for comments and people can contribute to them in the meantime we take them up again as a group. Any objection? (none). David McAuley (RySG): support that Greg Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 3.3. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Propose suspending the work until this group completes the review of ICANN’s past and current litigation which will inform the development of that document. Parminder - similar nature to my comment on 3.2. Would ask to keep this document open since review of litigation is not all the information for this document. Greg Shatan - Agree with Parminder and as per previous point the document will remain open for comments. Any objections? (none). Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 4. Questionnaire Update (20 minutes) 4.1. Method for processing responses 4.1.1. Rolling review of responses – Propose new responses to the questionnaire to be reviewed by the Jurisdiction sub-group at each meeting. Greg Shatan - Any objections (none). Parminder - Responses will be available to the sub-group. Greg Shatan – yes – they are posted on the Jurisdiction wiki as they come in. Decision: The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. 4.1.2. Proposal for a review team – Propose review team will be responsible for updating the sub-group on new responses and their status at each meeting as well as elaborating an evaluation framework for responses, for approval by the sub-group, based on the responses received. Greg Shatan - presentation of general expectations of review team. Kavouss Arasteh - Is sound ok now? suggest review team and evaluation team are separate but they should be balanced from all SOACs. Greg Shatan - Only one team. In terms of balance hoping we get volunteers from all groups. Mathieu Weill: Happy to help Mathieu Weill: Also, please all consider doing outreach about the questionnaire in your respective groups Greg Shatan - any objections? (none). David McAuley (RySG): sorry, let's label the RT as a pilot - the job might eat up the team's time so let's make it easy for them to seek relief. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion DM. Kavouss Arasteh: Blanced team Decision: The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. 4.1.3. Selection of the review team Greg Shatan - Volunteers? MW, Parminder, DM, KA, VMarda. Thank you. David McAuley (RySG): If these volunteers plan to be in Copenhagen maybe we can meet briefly. Action Item – staff to try to organize an informal meeting of the RT in Copenhagen. Mathieu Weill: +1 david. Good idea Kavouss Arasteh: May I propose that Mathieu coordinating the wroks of the team Mathieu Weill: Kavouss : thanks but that might be beyond my abilities And not very good to have too many hats Kavouss Arasteh: I do not thing any one oppose to my suggestion provided that mMathieu kindly agrees to that. Decision: Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. 4.2. Review of current responses in tool (document). Greg Shatan - Review of tool Kavouss Arasteh - Is there any threshold to make this valid? Greg Shatan - Good topic for the Review Team. We will also review these responses individually - this is not about voting - its more an information gathering process. Kavouss Arasteh - need wide representation on responses. Greg Shatan - depends on who responds. Any comments on the tool itself or the comments received to date? Kavouss Arasteh - deadline is 17 April - I wish to include the source of the information.and we should not forget the views of the minority. Greg Shatan - Reminder this is a questionnaire and not a survey - sources can be added - all of this is really details for the Review Team. Kavouss Arasteh - Source is important. David McAuley (RySG): good point, @Kavouss - Seun Ojedeji: I agree with Kavouss Greg Shatan - For the review team to consider. We need to give each response its due consideration to find facts - this what the questionnaire is about. David McAuley (RySG): Agree to let RT grapple with this first 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 5.1. Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Mathieu Weill: I'll look at Pool.com<http://pool.com/> (the only one in front of a non US court) Vidushi Marda: i can look at ruby glen Kavouss Arasteh - Please send a request on the list to get volunteers and give a week. Parminder may wish to volunteer for some. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion avri doria: i'll volunteer for Auerbach vs ICANN David McAuley (RySG): those picking cases here please be sure to put name in tool - so others don't duplicate work avri doria: what is the url for this sheet? Mathieu Weill: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… Action Items: · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases. 5.2. Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) Mathieu Weill: Was not really sure of choice of law / governing law so might need to add Parminder - It would be interesting on these cases if they are a matter of facts or principles - given we are considering jurisdiction vs ICANN policies. David McAuley (RySG): if we add to the form lets please write down what we are adding so reviewers are not guessing Greg Shatan - Good suggestion - under outcome. Lets also note if the court considered jurisdiction. Action Item: Will review the form. David McAuley (RySG): courts always "discuss" JX just to say they have it. Parminder: it is significant that court asserts jurisdiction, and full jurisdiction on different icann policy issues Philip Corwin: This is the litigation that ended with what was then the very controversial .com settlement Mathieu Weill - we need to make all the questions in the form crystal clear. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion. Kavouss Arasteh - I will have suggestions for this form. Two different type of judgements etc. Greg Shatan - Godd suggestion - please provide input on list. We have run out of time and will adjourn. Action Items: · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Summary of Decisions and Action Items: Decisions: · The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. · The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. · Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group.

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-TravelSupport-ICANN59Johannesburg-25June2017-Announcement and Process
by Bernard Turcotte March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

The body of this email contains: - The announcement for Travel Funding Applications for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Face to Face at ICANN59 on 25 June 2017 - The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Travel Funding Policy - The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Travel Funding Application Form (Applications must be submitted by 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 March 2017) All, The CCWG-Accountability -WS2 has travel funding for some Members and Rapporteurs to attend the Face to Face meetings held the day prior to an ICANN meeting who do not have any other funding available to them to attend. Members are those individuals that are specifically appointed by the chartering SO/ACs to the CCWG-Accountability - the list of Members can be found at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59640780 . Rapporteurs are those listed as such on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Wiki for specific sub-groups located at https://community.icann.org/di splay/WEIA/WS2+SubGroup+Topics. Please see the attached policy for details regarding this funding. If you are not a Member or a Rapporteur, please do not apply as there is a very limited number of seats available. The next Face to Face meeting of the CCWG-accountability will be held on 25 June 2017 in conjunction with ICANN 59 in Johannesburg South Africa. Those Members and Rapporteurs wishing to be considered for travel funding should fill out the attached form and submit it by 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 March 2017 to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org. The funding is for the Face- to- Face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability WS2 , which can include airfare, hotel and a per-diem allocation for meals for attending the Face to Face meeting only (and not the full ICANN meeting). However, in analyzing the requests the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs will consider requests for partial funding (such as only an additional day of hotel and per diem to attend the Face to Face meeting) in order to maximize participation. As such Members are encouraged to only apply for what they need to allow for funding as many Members and Rapporteurs as possible. The final decisions on travel funding will be made by the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs and published on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support within 7 days of the application period closing (a confirmation of the posting will be sent to the CCWG email list). Those being supported will then be contacted by ICANN Travel using the standard ICANN travel funding process to arrange details. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the CCWG-Accountability support staff at Acct-Staff(a)icann.org . Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 *Updated Process for Expressions of Interest requesting CCWG Travel Support (December 2016)* The current budgeted amount to support the work of CCWG WS2 members allocates travel support (travel, hotel and per diem) for an amount equivalent to 20 appointed members or rapporteurs to attend only a CCWG face-to-face meeting. The Co-Chairs have the authority to re-allocate this amount – this could include supporting requests for partial funding to allow them to maximize the number of members attending (e.g. the requestor may ask for any or all of the following: airfare, and/or hotel and/or per diem) or to extend the stay of some key participants. You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are officially listed as a Rapporteur or Co-Rapporteur on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Wiki located at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICA NN+Accountability+Home . Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency Travel Guidelines located at: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency +Travel+Home The CCWG travel support slots will be allocated in priority as follows: CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs – 3 slots (or equivalent amount) CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organization Appointed Members CCWG-Accountability Rapporteurs CCWG appointed Members and Rapporteurs requesting consideration by the Co-Chairs for travel support to attend a face-to-face meeting must complete and submit the travel request form by the stipulated deadline in order to be considered for funding. NOTE: In evaluating the applications for travel funding the Co-Chairs will consider applicant's attendance to CCWG meetings and their contributions to the ongoing work as well as the availability of alternate funding to the applicant. CCWG Staff support will send out an announcement regarding the application for travel support and deadline for application submissions as soon as a face-to-face meeting has been approved. Applications to request travel support are located at: https://community.icann.org/di splay/WEIA/Travel+Support Completed forms can be sent to Acct-Staff(a)icann.org <Acct-Staff(a)icann.org> for submission to the Co-Chairs for review and approval. All applicants for CCWG WS2 travel support will be posted on the CCWG WS2 wiki under Travel Support. Names will be listed REQUESTED and once approved will be listed as APPROVED for travel support including the type of support that is approved. The Co-Chairs will review the applications received, including the requests for partial support, and determine the list of approved CCWG members who will receive travel funding. The CCWG approved travel support list will be submitted to ICANN Constituency Travel for processing according to community travel guidelines. The approved list of funded CCWG members will be posted on the WS2 wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Suppor <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Travel+Support>*t* =========================================================== CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Supported Travel Request Form You are eligible for travel support from the CCWG-Accountability only if you are an officially appointed member of WS2 from a chartering SO or AC or if you are an officially listed Rapporteur for a WS2 sub-group. The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs will review the applications received, including the requests for partial support, and determine the list of approved CCWG members who will receive travel funding. The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 approved travel support list will be submitted to ICANN Constituency Travel for processing according to community travel guidelines Travel support arrangements will follow Constituency travel guidelines located at: https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency +Travel+Home CCWG-Accountability-WS2 appointed Members or rapporteurs requesting consideration by the Co-Chairs for travel support to attend a face-to-face meeting must complete and submit the travel request form by the stipulated deadline in order to be considered for funding. Applicant Identification ======================== Name: Chartering Org or Rapporteur for which WS2 Group: Email address: Date of Request: Other sources of support ======================== Please indicate if you are receiving travel support from another organization to attend the ICANN meeting I am receiving support from another organization (yes or no): If you are not receiving support from another organization, please proceed to “Support requested from CCWG-Accountability”. If you are receiving support, please provide the information requested below: Name of the Organization(s) providing the support: Indicate type of support and how many days the support is provided (BY FUNDING ORGANIZATION): Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days): Support requested from CCWG-Accountability =========================================== Please indicate the type of travel support (including the number of days) you are seeking from the CCWG for WS2 - please remember this is only for attending the Face to Face meeting and is not for the entire ICANN meeting. Airfare (yes or no): Hotel (# days): Per Diem (# days):

17 28

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 28 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #22 here; https://community.icann.org/x/K6vRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [id:image001.png@01D28DF5.EF27C2B0] Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 14 Participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Apologies: Jorge Cancio, Herb Waye, Mathew Shears Niels ten Oever - Audio only? (AAS). Any update to SOIs (none). May of been premature to call this a first reading but if we agree today it would allow us to have a meeting next week to have a second reading to submit to the plenary. David McAuley (RySG): are we meeting next week? Paul McGrady: Not everyone is going to make it to the face to face due to the way the meeting schedule turned out Kavouss Arasteh: There is no Plenary before Copenhagen Anne Aikman-Scalese: Next week Tuesday meeting would be hard for those travelling from far. Tatiana Tropina: I put red tick as while I think it would be good, I am very much against excluding those who can't make this call next week Greg Shatan: That will also be too late to submit a document for the Plenary. Tatiana Tropina: Greg, yes. Kavous Arasteh: There is no meeting scheduled for next week and my points have not been addressed. Niels ten Oever - temperature check to have a meeting next week (no support). Ok will advise Co-Chairs that we will not have a document for the face to face. Tatiana Tropina: this is of course sad but we can't compromise on the quality and inclusion :-) Niels ten Oever - should we look at the JC document or my version? Kavouss Arasteh - I have also sent a revised version why is not being considered? Niels ten Oever - KA your comments have already been integrated in the document. Anne Aikman-Scalese - I have not seen it so if we use it can you be specific. 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team Tatian Tropina - (reading document). Paul McGrady - could we deal with one para at a time. On para 1 seems inconsistent. No definition of DECLERATION. Now we have OTHER INSTRUMENTS which are also undefined. Then we get into COVENANTS which is also undefined. We need to clean this up and call it one thing consistently throughout the document. Greg Shatan: Maybe we should use "conventions and other instruments" as used in the "consideration". Tatian Tropina - PM thanks this is very useful. If we use the language from Annex 12 would this meet the requirement. Paul McGrady - The definition can be broad we use anything we want and then use it consistently it will be fine. Tatiana Tropina: But for the substance we use the "HR conventions or other instruments" as in the Annex 12 Niels ten Oever: But for interpretation we might also use UDHR, no? Kavouss Arasteh - Agree with PM but still have issues with the first para given agreements are one thing but declarations are something else - you cannot mix these things as states have not agreed to all these things - maybe just drop the first sentence. Tatiana Tropina: that this means declarations, conventions, Bills, etc widely agreed internationally avri doria: Since none of it is binding on ICANN, it really does not matter who signed or implemented. Paul McGrady: Human Rights conventions, agreements, declarations, conventions, covenants, and instruments (collectively "Human Rights Documents") Paul McGrady: +1 Avri Tatiana Tropina: Paul, inserting this in the google doc - thanks much much! Niels ten Oever - good suggestions for the drafting team. Greg Shatan: "Documents" seems a bit too generic -- I would prefer that we use "conventions and other instruments" each time. Markus Kummer: "internationally agreed human rights instruments" ? Tatiana Tropina: Greg, that's what I suggested while speaking, but we can fine tune for the next call avri doria: i like conventions and other instruments as well Paul McGrady: (collectively "Human Rights Cannon") Tatiana Tropina: we have to follow the language of annex 12 but still implement Paul's corrections Niels ten Oever: "States are parties to these document" Markus Kummer: instrument is the usual overarching term used in international law Greg Shatan - Need to reflect that whatever we define is aimed at States. Tatiana Tropina - lets put all the comments in the Googledoc and the lawyer it up to make consistent. Kavouss Arasteh - You cannot use INSTRUMENTS sometimes this is more than conventions or not. Still suggest we drop the first part. Avri Doria - Irrelevant how many states have agreed to these things does not matter since they are not applicable to ICANN. Greg Shatan: +1 Avri. Paul McGrady: +1 Avri Tatiana Tropina: + 1 Avri - very much to the point. Janet Shih Hajek: Instead of Human Rights conventions are agreements between states,” why not just start with “ICANN, as a non-state private party, is not a party to any Human Rights convention or other human rights instrument. However, ICANN could refer to any of the widely adopted Human Rights conventions and other instruments . . . “ Tatiana Tropina: there is nothing all countries Kavouss Arasteh: Disagree with AD, agreed with states causes problem need to fix. Tatiana Tropina - (reading next section). Not happy with JC proposed language but can live with it. David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Tatiana on this Kavouss Arasteh - do not agree with JC language. Greg Shatan - KA proposal not much different and we can replace CONSENSUS with AGREEMENT. Tatiana Tropina: yes this should be fine. It makes no big difference for me, but if it's very critical for someone let's replace Paul McGrady - do not understand how the second and third paras fit together. I think we were considering if they were binding and para should say it is not. Para 3 just says what we say in para 1 but only about 1 thing. Para 2 needs to be stronger and there does not seem to be a reason for para. Tatiana Tropina - the problem is because of the definintion of UN guidance on HR for Business. As to para 2 the recommendation has been watered down to have a compromise because some people still think they should be binding. David McAuley (RySG): I think paragraph 2 is fine and accurate David McAuley (RySG): And agree w/Tatiana that the language was crafted with compromise in mind Paul McGrady: @Tatiana - thank you. That discussion is helpful and explains why we need paragraph 3. Kavouss Arasteh - tend to agree with PM. If you want to maintain para 3 it should be before para 2. But do not favour keeping para 3. If kept should be reworded to show there is not consensus on the matter. Greg Shatan: Paras 2 and 3 deal with interpretation and implementation of the Guiding Principles, respectively. Paul McGrady: Once we ake it clear that Guiding Principles are not part of the Human Rights Documents contemplated in paragraph 1, I think paragraph 3 makes sense now. avri doria: para 3 is important and it is the saving grace of the section. Paul McGrady: @Avri - :) Anne Aikman-Scalese - We need to be clear for the Board on the Ruggie principles other it will be a recipe for trouble. Taiana Tropina - 3rd para was a compromise from the last version. Would be happy not to have it but it would probably cause an issue so we will keep it and fix it. David McAuley (RySG): The interpretation of the bylaw cannot undo the bylaw – it will be binding if it is international recognized under applicable law – that may differ from place to place Greg Shatan - Have looked up HR Instruments do not include Ruggie and would suggest that para 2 and 3 are out of scope. avri doria: and time to time David McAuley (RySG): agreed, @Avri Niels ten Oever: UNGPs are a softlaw instrument Tatiana Tropina: oooooooohhhh that's too radical even for me. Kavouss Arasteh - if we drop para 3 then we can drop 2 also. Guiding cannot be binding. Tatiana Tropina: Wow, I find myself in disagreement with Greg, finally! :-) Niels ten Oever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Guiding_Principles_on_Business… Niels ten Oever: And Kavouss and Greg aligned avri doria: deletion of Ruggie comes close to some of our die in the ditch regions avri doria: a UN agreed doc is in scope! Paul McGrady: To say nothing about it after all this work on it, doesn't seem productive. Greg, can you find another place in this document to address the Guiding Principles? David McAuley (RySG): We should address Ruggie as not reaching consensus - we spent considerabl;e time on it Tatiana Tropina - As AD has stated Ruggie principles will be die in the ditch for some. It may be best to actually deal with this in the document because it would create ambiguity going forward Niels ten Oever: Then Paul asked a question, we explained, and now everything is up in the air Niels ten Oever: am a bit surprised avri doria: i think the 3 para is the right solution avri doria: there was a sophistic twist on the matter of scope. but denying scope to an UN aggreed document in scope abuse. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Niels on this - the language was carefully put together Greg Shatan - My suggestion to remove the paras has nothing to do with Ruggie but rather simply if it is in scope or not. Tatiana Tropina: I think it should be treated with caution instead of leaving the things blank. remember the jurisdiction debate. Niels ten Oever: Ruggie is an instrument - there is no doubt about that Tatiana Tropina: David, yes. And the Ruggie principles is like elephants in the room Tatiana Tropina: we don't have to redefine terms instruments but we have to note that they are not instruments. Yes, seems like a good suggestion avri doria: here we go again. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with David's last comment Tatiana Tropina: We can't ignore Ruggie, this will be reopened at one point and we have to deliver. Paul McGrady: "could be" is not "must be" Kavouss Arasteh - We do not use Ruggie to interpret the Bylaw - we can use it to interpret Human Rights. What is the definition of a HR Core Value? Paul McGrady: Let's add the caveat and save the hard work we have done on dealing with Ruggie. Tatiana Tropina: Oh I would be happy with deleting the para 3 but many will die in the ditch for this Greg Shatan: We are calling it the "Human Rights Core Value." Greg Shatan: Core Value is singular and refers only to that Core Value that refers to human rights. Tatiana Tropina: Paul, this seems like the best solution. And yes, the text has to be clarified. As I said already in all the fights about the substance we are sometimes paying more attention to compromise than the quality and clarity of the explanation Greg Shatan: Core Values is plural and would refer to all the Core Values. Kavouss Arasteh: Greg, it is wrong to call it Core Value Tatiana Tropina: Paul has been our reality check - thanks so much Paul. Greg Shatan: That is exactly what it is. Kavouss Arasteh: Why you wish to generalize it to cover all core values Tatiana Tropina: Avri, we have to mention them. I agree - being an opponent of Ruggie. Paul McGrady: We need to tell the plenary about the work we did on this. We can't just leave it blank... Avri Doria - going at this again. Trying to use the definition to get Ruggie out is not valid. As such disagree with this. Tatiana Tropina: Avri, yes. The para is carefully crafted consensus and we have to leave it there (may be fine tune) David McAuley (RySG): Bylaw 27.2(a) says: The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights ("FOI-HR") ... Tatiana Tropina: I do dislike saying this because I was against the para 3, but I think we have to take this into consideration Niels ten Oever - should go back to the drafting group. Adjourned.

1 0