Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #16 here; https://community.icann.org/x/tZPDAw A copy of the action items and 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) Action Items · ACTION (Subgroup): continue to work on this sentence on the mailing list and in Google doc. · ACTION (subgroup): add some substance to the document related to other SO/ACs Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Kavouss Arasteh: During the entire ICG,CWG,CCWG ,IOT,IRP ,,There has not been any chair so kind, balanced, patient, skillful and neutral as Niels. Congratulations Niels. Audio only: no participants. Roll call will be taken from the AC room No SOI updates Discussion of FoI during plenary on Wednesday 14 – 13:00 UTC Niels unable to attend the plenary tomorrow. Tatiana and Greg will be attending and presenting the FoI. Encouraging subgroup participants to attend in order to support discussions in the plenary. Status of Legal questions: Waiting to hear back from ICANN Legal re: legal questions raised. 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the Human Rights Policy and Process Questions Draft document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY_edit&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=T_59t3A5ynMRkuZUC7EJ_AtPiBLtTOCKUW_-izCTVa8&s=D5CcRPIt-cGDUjy1DHRXzCFJdR6uhlIW61Jf1d1JA4o&e=> a. The policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights Niels read the section Kavouss:"ICANN can prioritize" - could we replace 'can' by 'should'? DM disagrees. This document is complex and needs a preamble. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with David on the change in meaning that comes with change from "can" to "should". Tatiana: let's rephrase it to say it is a suggestion from the group for ICANN to prioritize. Kavouss: "is consistent"; we don't know that it is consistent. change done Anne: the sentence still sounds a little akward, should be worked on off-line. ACTION (Subgroup): continue to work on this sentence on the mailing list and in Google doc. b. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process and: Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Niels read the section. Kavouss: I have difficulties with the word "substantive" Niels: text in quotes is strictly for the GNSO David McAuley (RySG): agree w/Niels and GNSO policies should be treated as they usually are, should not imply change that process in this document. Paul McGrady: we should not limit this section to GNSO. Tatiana Tropina: the question is about policies and processes, so we have to think about AC David McAuley (RySG): I suggest that this document in no way imply a change to how GNSO policy is presently developed and approved in ICANN. Niels: should we try to include all SO/ACs? Paul: we want the FoI to be applicable to all SO/ACs Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Actually all gTLD policy is developed at the GNSO - not just "substantive" policies. Agree other SOs and ACs have input to that process and the GAC in particular has direct input to the Board. Greg: agrees with Anne, should say 'any policy' rather than 'substantive' ACTION (subgroup): add some substance to the document related to other SO/ACs Tatiana: There is mention of GAC further down in the document, so seems like GAC is covered already. Mary Wong: The Bylaws spell out the scope of the GNSO and ccNSO policy processes very clearly, including who can participate in a ccNSO PDP, initiate one etc. The ASO's mechanisms are quite different from either the ccNSO or the GNSO as well. Greg Shatan: "policies and frameworks". This needs to be given further thought. Mary Wong: The ASO policy process is spelled out in the MOU between ICANN and the NRO. On frameworks, there is now the Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs (recently adopted by the ccNSO and GNSO). Kavouss: "multistakeholder" repetition - text needs to be simplified. c. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Niels read the section. Kavouss: 4th line "and interpreted" should be "and implemented". The phrase could be simpler. Greg: we should continue to work on interpretation vs implementation. It's not the purpose of this group to mandate implementation. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): "The different SOs would consider incorporating HRIAs in THEIR PDPs, not "its". After that sentence, the references to "will" should be "would" in the conditional since "will" . Niels invites the group to make additional edits to the Google document. 3. AOB Next meeting of the subgroup: Dec 22.