Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #11 here; https://community.icann.org/x/LhO4Aw A copy of the action items and 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 Items Question - avri doria: is Jorge question a Legal staff question or a Board question? Support to ask this question to ICANN Legal · ACTION ITEM for Staff to ask this question of ICANN Legal Notes 1. Administrivia Role call to be made from the logs Agenda no changes proposed Note comment - Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly consider my suggestion made at last meeting i.e. whenever we quote a text from Bylaws in second column, in third column ,if there is no comment to the quoted text we should indicate no interpretation is required 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI: Members of the drafting team asked to provide comments on the draft: Greg provide a summary and noted the forth column that was added of newly suggested text added by the group. Includes both commentary and discussion, some of the text has ot been entirely discussed but is still a working progress. Fourth column is more logistical than substantive. Noted Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the doc on screen is not the last one - it does not include my comments and contributions of today Latest document located at: Tatiana Tropina: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-ZUNii4iVd-jQwx9eZ01CGFw/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-2DZUNii4iVd-2DjQwx9eZ01CGFw_edit&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=zxiZbYx2dFbBVgnTkAlUYlg2GcGFcjI0KyngPVLMEb4&s=BXm4iuj3FXlQ0C0fYT5-edFkn-UL-ux8E5uGpBwe0VA&e=> a.‘within the scope of its Mission’ Greg read the text from "within the scope of its Mission" Question raised by Jorge regarding the text on the screen reflect the changes as of yesterday evening but they do not include the other work that was included today. Appears to be going towards consensus on this section Kavouss Question raised on where the text originated from - the new bylaws or from where? In particular kin the fourth column and should not deviate from the bylaws. Greg - Response as a general matter this in interpretative guidance and need t move beyond the actual guidance of the text to a context of a framework that is value neutral in approaching the topic. Question - Tatiana Tropina: No, I just wanted to ask - Kavouss do you want to replace "consider" with "respect"? I don't have a problem with this. I think we can do so. This is the product of the drafting team and their consideration of the materials and their thoughts. Comments from Kavouss Arasteh: Greg I do not agree with your argument that we interpret "Respect" meaning " consider" Response Tatiana Tropina: Kavouss, we will analyze your comment. I made a note in the document. The drafting team will consider alternatives when continuing its work on the draft and will look to try an be clear with regarding to what ICANN is doing. b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ Greg introduced the core value section, this is where we get to the point of human rights as a core value, and it needs to be applied through interpretive rules with all the core values and commitments. its still a work in progress. Do have balancing test requirement here and that they is no hierarchy among the core values. Important that the text be clear. Jorge comment - text agreed to by the drafting team more or less - however will benefit from overview by ICANN Legal on core values and the balancing text but on the question between commitment and core values in the Mission part of the bylaws. Relationship shold be consistent between core values and commitment. No document that explains the approach to managing core values and commitments. Comments Tatiana Tropina: agree with Greg and the balancing issue with the core values Jorge - Noted question to be asked of ICANN Legal - will provide in chat Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): question for ICANN Legal: what is their approach on the relationship between commitments and core values in general; and the HR core value and commitments in particular. Question - avri doria: is Jorge question a Legal staff question or a Board question? Support to ask this question to ICANN Legal ACTION ITEM for Staff to ask this question of ICANN Legal It was noted - Kavouss Arasteh: What does worry me is that we modify the Bylaws through this interpretation where as we need to maintain the Bylaw and provide clarification and further exploring the initial text Note more work may be required on balancing test c.‘respecting’ Tatiana - comment on red n=highlight in the document, text and thoughts are quire long and still disagreement in the drafting team on the draft text. If considered negative obligations and ICANN would not have any actions to take to respect human rights, is positive obligations in policy and decision making processes includes core values intended to guide ICANN in its decision making. It was proposed that the text cold be combined to contain both positive and negative approaches. It was noted - Brett Schaefer: Tatiana, the bylaw says that HR creates no obligation. Why are we discussing positive and negative obligations? Jorge - comments, as you can see still disagreement within the drafting group and the way the ideas are expressed. Agreement in the notion that respecting Human Rights has both positive and negative sides. Respecting in positive light provides. It was noted that the Ruggie Principles are relevant to the framework of interpretation as there are lots of places where these principles have been supported. Suggestions on text in the fourth column, happy to work with other members on text for this column beyong the small group working on the drafting Comments on the text provided - Kavouss Arasteh: Para. 1.2 viii has been combined with para. 1.2 c and made a mixture of up - not interpretation Greg - comment - lost of discussion in the chat this is why its important to figure out what is meant by applicable law. This is a key to the bylaw the way its is drafted. Hope to avoid loop holes or fuzzy language. Neils - Point raised regarding Ruggie and why expliced denouncement of Ruggie is noted. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Well I do not agree with "denouncing" the UNGP... as may be clear by now... Kavouss Arasteh: some people were categorically against use of Ruggy principles''' Greg - not a compliance test Neils - need to understand why its noted that Ruggie is applicable of not, could use it to address respect Tatiana Tropina noted that many voices to consider when applying Ruggie and the groups needs to look at alternative approaches, specifically with respect Neils need to consider different places to obtain definitions of respect Brettt - confused by discussing on obligations that are broader than what has been laid out by the Mission and applicable law d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’ Drafting team overview of the section -Tatiana related to the ICANN core vlaue and instruments create obligations for states scope of national law can be very broad. This should not be read in isolisation and should be read with applicable law. Depending on the jurisdiction in which ICANN operates may impact the applicable Human Rights that are applied Noted - Kavouss Arasteh: if everybody is in favour of saying international convention (s) have been drafted for obligatory application for states and thus do not address ICANN concerns, just plainly and clearly say that and put it to public comment and see reactionsa e. ‘as required by applicable law’ f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission’ g. ‘or beyond obligations found in applicable law’ h. ‘or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’ 3. AOB