Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #21 here; https://community.icann.org/x/85vRAw 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) Action items · Participants to review FOI Google doc, include suggestions and discuss points on the list. Notes: (Incl relevant portions of chat) 18 Participants at start of call. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - No audio only. No changes. Mark Carvel and Jorge Cancio have input from the UN group on Business and Human Rights and I would ask if ok for them to present (no objections). will invite them to one of our future calls to present. Tatiana Tropina: what exactly would be the benefit of this? Are they aware what we are doing? Are they familiar with ICANN? Tatiana Tropina: or are the Ruggie salespersons? Sorry for being harsh 2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team (Review of the FOI document - Greg Shatan presenting 3 options) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZ... avri doria: Strong support for proposal 2 Tatiana Tropina: I don't know if "I don't know whether alleged by some" is an appropriate text for such a document Tatiana Tropina: I think proposal 1 and 2 can be combined to some extent but we have to be clear that the group hasn't reach an agreement whether to recommend Ruggie Mathew Shears - Want to reinforce point made my GS - have to be careful how this is written. Options should be placed above the statement. Niels ten Oever - MS could you expand on your views of the 3 options. Mathew Shears- Really uncertain ADOPTION is the right word. Have to be careful in these options. Tatiana Tropina: No but to make the second para in the FoI we have to really consider Tatiana Tropina: because I wonder where this consideration that they are useful is coming from? Have we agreed on that? David McAuley (RySG): Thanks Matthew, fair points Tatiana Tropina: I mean have we really considered? And this actually goes together with what Matt is saying Kavouss Arasteh - COULD be used as a guide is correct - this has been discussed over and over - but I do not agree with ADOPTION. We should not keep going over things that are done. matthew shears: these 3 proposal are fraught with difficulties matthew shears: yes, we have been here before ... avri doria: "could be used as a guide" works for me. but i am more than happy to explore a multitude of wordings. Tatiana Tropina: I strongly disagree Erich Schweighofer: Kavous Arasteh is right - Ruggie is for commercial companies. Tatiana Tropina - three people from the drafting team were not on the call to raise the issues. Disagree with KA, not all members of the drafting team were present which has caused issues. avri doria: no it is for companies. Greg Shatan: People from different stakeholder groups, I may add. avri doria: perhaps more pointed to the commercial affairs. and we cannot deny that ICANN is involved in commerce. it just does it 'not for profits’. but commerce it is. Erich Schweighofer: No public purpose ...? Kavouss Arasteh - Tatiana, pls do not impose your views avri doria: ... is invovled in in commerce ...public purpose is the reason. commerce is the method. Tatiana Tropina - ICANN can in the future agree to follow the Ruggie principles - but our group has not reached agreement on this. But the group has to have the discussion. Greg Shatan - Agree in large part with TT - we have not reached agreement. Have we completed the discussion - probably not - but we cannot buy the Ruggies principles wholesale - maybe some subsets - but some parts are certainly unapplicable and possibly against ICANN's mission and this goes beyond the scope of this group. Niels ten Oever: It's not like we never discuss this. Tatiana Tropina: we have to have at least the discussion on the option 1 or 2 we never had a discussion whether we have this conclusion or not exactly so I don't agree with having a sentence just because it sounds nice. matthew Shears: I would argue given the differences of opinion and interpretation it is to early to make a commitment of sorts to Ruggie - it may be that this is addressed in the future as we have also discussed in the past Tatiana Tropina - I agree that we can say thay ICANN org or community can decide for themselves what to do with Ruggie we have to be crystal clear that this group agreed or disagreed upon. I am not against Ruggie if ICANN wil decide to commit. Fine. Avri Doria: well they have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guideline, somethog to get a clue from. Kavouss Arasteh - If some people did not attend, it may be wrong that that opposed to what has been agreed at the meeting in which several people attending avri doria: well they have to be guided by the ones that are inappropriate. there is no binding, just a guideline, something to get a clue from.[they do not have be guided by ... Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary David McAuley: I would add my voice to saying we have to be very careful how we refer to the Ruggie principles. these are simply guidelines as stated in the Bylaws. Tatiana Tropina: Avri, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary fine. Why not. But let's not confuse anyone with what we agreed upon and what we considered Kavouss Arasteh - Secretatriat , pls also include my comments like other comments avri doria: /9on the notes, there was a not missing in my first sentence) Greg Shatan: And that's why significant points should not be decided at a single meeting. Otherwise, people could schedule meetings at a time when people are engaged in other ICANN-related meetings and unable to attend, and use that to jam minority positions through. Tatiana Tropina: David, agree! A very good point. ICANN can consider Ruggie but we certainly can't decide for them and we haven't agreed what is useful avri doria: agree not binding. Kavouss Arasteh - If people do not attend a meeting where things are decided you cannot come up after to change things. So do not agree with TT. Suggest use COULD BE USED WHERE APPLICABLE. We are not charged with any ADOPTION. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought that we worked under that principal Greg Tatiana Tropina: They have some strong language Greg Shatan: Sorry for the duplication, didn't even know that could happen! matthew shears: there is nothing to stop discussion of ruggie occuring in the future Tatiana Tropina: and any language which is vague can still be used to go outside the limits Tatiana Tropina: Matt +1 avri doria: ( greg been happenin to me too - did not understand how it happened ) Tatiana Tropina: it is appropriate when people didn't raise any issues we are raising them now avri doria: decsions are not made in one meeting, i thought David McAuley (RySG): disagree respectfully w/Kavouss - if a person misses one meeting they should still be able to be heard Tatiana Tropina: Especially if the person was trying her best to draft and raise issues John Laprise: Strongly disagree with Kavous. We want a strong output document. Period. Tatiana Tropina: We can't rush compromising the quality John Laprise: agreed Tatiana. Kavous: we're not in the UN we're volunteers working on Internet governance policy. avri doria: i thought we were working toward consensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything is decided. and that is by the plenary not us. matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly we take that as rule for my WT and all other groups in ICANN I work with Avri Tatiana Tropina: if we are to go for the option 2, we have to consider it not as a sentence but content wise Greg Shatan: Agree with Avri & Cheryl. And with Niels position on where we are and the two readings rule. matthew shears: yes Niels ten Oever: As TT and MS have said there may be a combination of options 1 and 2 which could work. matthew shears: yes Tatiana Tropina: only if we consider option 2 properly Kavouss Arasteh - Avri, if you want to make a principle of "i thought we were working toward consensus as much as possible and nothing is decided until everything is decided. and that is by the plenary not us.- pls submit your views to CCWG Plenary avri doria: Kavouss, not me. I thought that was the modality we worked by. Kavouss Arasteh - Not at all avri doria: and ICAN Consensus not Full Consensus Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Kavouss Arasteh - who agreed with that modality - is it in the charter? avri doria: of WS2? avri doria: i thought so. Greg Shatan: I cannot agree with general support for the Ruggie Principles. matthew shears: proposal 1a and 2 wil need some serious massaging and would need to be future oriented - the first para of proposal 1 stands as a separate statement of fact David McAuley (RySG): Well put Greg that RP is not a banned book and not THE guide Tatiana Tropina: If we adopt Option 2 we have to mean it and we have to be very clear on what we are agreeing to - need to discuss properly - will support any consensus. matthew shears: its a marriage that will need a lot of work avri doria: I think Tatiana concern is premature Niels ten Oever: Might also be interested to hear the UN WG about this Kavous Arasteh - Cannot say Ruggie Principles are completely inapplicable. this has been discussed. Tatiana Tropina: it was discussed and we never agreed it was applicable Tatiana Tropina: if we agree - fine. I am fine. I am against the sentence without a proper consideration. Greg Shatan: The Ruggie Principles are most certainly not "applicable law." Tatiana Tropina: no, they are not applicable law David McAuley (RySG): +1 Greg and Tatiana Niels ten Oever: No, they are a soft-law instrument. avri doria: my point was that is is premature to worry about the details of Ruggie. It is a guide for those doing commerce. anyone using it will have to take into account all thr restraints of the bylaws and not use it inappropriately. to do that up front seems premature. Tatiana Tropina: I think it is as premature as recommend to include the sentence only because we like how it is written proposal two hasn't got enough consideration it’s still a proposal. And we for now just consider it as a sentence, a text. Greg Shatan: First ws have to discuss whether it could be useful. Tatiana Tropina: Yes. If we write this we have to discuss this. yes exactly - not all are useful, right? why are we writing they are all useful? Kavouss Arasteh - Use Could, would etc. Saying not applicable is not good - this has been discussed many times. Tatiana Tropina: I think Kavouss is very close to the truth - under sertain circumstances if so decided by ICANN org, board or community Niels ten Oever: @Kavouss - added to the GoogleDOC Tatiana Tropina: depending on the case Greg Shatan - We cannot recommend the Ruggie Principles wholesale - some may be useful. This is a decision for another time - which could be useful or appropriate under what circumstances. Lets not go through them one by one. matthew shears: we are interpreting and implementing the bylaw. as to whether it is useful for interpreting we have discussed and that we could not agree. there is nothing to prevent them being revisited in the future and we could address them in that context Tatiana Tropina: Greg what if we leave the decision whether to use them as a guidance to those who want to use? ICANN org etc matthew shears: we are not ruling them out Tatiana Tropina: with careful consideration I also don't think so - it's not our task. But we have to be clear that it's up to them to decide and that we couldn't agree matthew shears: + 1 Greg Niels Ten Oever - GS proposal sounded like a good compromise - could you put this in the Google Doc? Kavouss Arasteh - Tend to agree with last statement of GS - Certain principles could be used for guidance under certain circumstances. This would work and leave it at that. Tatiana Tropina: +1 greg avri doria: except for the 'under any circumstance' goes too far let the future decide what fits the bylaws not us Tatiana Tropina: we didn't suggest to say it wasn't applciable. we suggested to say we couldn't recomment and that's not up to us to decide David McAuley (RySG): agree with Greg - RP is not to be "recommended" but can/may be a guide in appropriate circumstances that might help ICANN discern what it ought to do under bylaw constraints Tatiana Tropina: other than that. agree with Greg David, and it should be their decision, not ours - the applicability Avri Doria: yes Tatiana Matthew Shears: agree David McAuley (RySG): exactly - we cannot peer into the future for ICANN, thay must abide by bylaw in the day Niels ten Oever: Positive is nice Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the proposed text when captured then of course needs to go to the list for wider review and then discuss in our next meeting Tatiana Tropina: I am not against I am just against blank decisions and recommendations. If ICANN decides to use Ruggie I would be only welcoming this. Well, if they decide with careful consideration :-) avri doria: whereas the guidelines should still guide Niels ten Oever - Sounds like a possible compromise. Can we move to other parts of the text in these last few minutes of the call. Lets share this language and have two readings of it to confirm consensus. David McAuley (RySG): agree w/CLO Tatiana Tropina: agree with Cheryl, too Markus Kummer: there is room for some creative drafting! Tatiana Tropina: this is not finished and we have to redraft and re-discuss to make everyone happy - Markus, there is always the room... last week it was Hilton breakfast room ;-) for three of us Tatiana Tropina - for the policy framework part - change operationalize to PUT IN PRACTICE etc. (review of document). Each SOAC should take this into consideration individually. Balancing important. David McAuley (RySG): I think the word "commitment" (last word penultimate sentence) ought to be "core value" Niels ten Oever - please look at the document and comment on the list. I will propose to present where we are in Copenhagen at the plenary tomorrow as we will not have consensus by then. Kavouss Arasteh - What is TT proposing? Niels ten Oever - a work in process but we are progressing. Lets hope we can continue to do this going forward. Talk next week. Adjourned. Decisions – none