Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #23 here; https://community.icann.org/x/M6vRAw 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) [cid:image001.png@01D2A315.E70FD1A0] Notes (including relevant portions of the chat): 12 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - No apologies, no audio only, no update to SOIs. Short update on ICANN58 - we are under some time constraint. There was a meeting facilitated by the GAC WG on HR where Anita Ramastray was present offered UN support for the work for the sub-group after a cursory presentation of the Ruggie principles. Propose we ask AR and the UN wg on business and HR to give their feed back as part of the public consultation on our report (no objections) - will inform them of this. Any updates to agenda? (none). David McAuley: agreed to that approach 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team Niels ten Oever - Ask the drafting team to walk us through the most recent version. Anne Aikman-Scalese - thank you for including my minority positions. description of meetings of the drafting team meetings in Copenhagen. David McAuley: why not parse them out by paragraph Tatiana Tropina: We changed the first para as well - in accordance with the comments from the previous call Niels ten Oever: Maybe we should start with reading out the first para (review of draft document - Consideration - new para 1) Greg Shatan - If and where we should put in something about NO CHERRY PICKING. It may make sense to put it in this para. Niels ten Oever - some text in Annex 6 of WS1 report seems to fit the bill. the last part of this could meet the requirements? "The CCWG-Accountability also disagreed with any attempt to single out any specific Human Right (such as “freedom of expression”) in the proposed draft Bylaw text on the basis that Human Rights cannot be selectively mentioned, emphasized, or applied since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Niels ten Oever: Human Rights cannot be selectively mentioned, emphasized, or applied since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Paul Twomey: Does the ICANN can choose approach leave it open to litigators saying you failed because you did not choose the instrument that I prefer? I don't have a solution for this I am afraid - should we ask the lawyers? Niels ten Oever - do not think this is an issue by have no issue asking the lawyers. David McAuley - tend to agree with PT. The text quoted by NTO have a problem with the word APPLIED. Also the obligation to respect is limited to those Internationally Recognized and per applicable law. matthew shears: agree with David on the above. One could of course just state that "Human Rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated." Kavouss Arasteh - Too many proposed modifications need to be included before we can consider this as a first reading. Need a new draft if we are doing this. kavouss arasteh: pls provide concrete changes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): re Kavouss comment I believe it will be valuable to the group to reach a true full consensus. If not, we have to point out a lack of consensus and address the disagreed positions. kavouss arasteh: You started that on sunday ...consensus was reached?? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): IN this regard, I have personal experience (and so does Avri) working to full consensus on GNSO SCI (when it existed.) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Anne +++ kavouss arasteh: Greg, pls provide concrete proposal rather than describing the proposal Niels ten Oever: +1 but perhaps lets discuss this when we get to that part of the text? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Kavouss - no I did not start this on Sunday. NOt at all. kavouss arasteh: Niels ,no. of intervention must be restricted not more than two Greg Shatan - A few thoughts vs PT comment - Applicable Law thing is very helpful here - if something goes beyond applicable law its going beyond the remit of the Bylaw. So not too worried about PT question. On cherry picking those instruments that fall within the Bylaw we cannot separate the elements in that instrument vs saying certain instruments apply or not. (reading second para of Considerations) Paul Twomey - edits proposed will be typed in chat. Paul Twomey: Change to "{However, with regards to the implementation of the Core Value, at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value." Kavouss Arasteh - all proposals for change should be type in chat. Mathew Shears - As a member of the drafting team this discussion is useful. Proposed edits. Niels ten Oever: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8z... Paul Twomey: I am concerned that the community does not draw the conclusion that we are signalling that the how guiding principles is potentially applicable - this I would think is a major mistake Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Sorry I did not understand the proposed edit by Matthew. Paul Twomey: sorry I mean the whole guiding principles Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I for one am finding these brief explanations of both concerns with and rationale for the proposed text useful at this polishing stage, as well as the proposed edits to the text being made to chat or of course GDoc Paul Twomey - Worried that we would say that the Principles as a whole could be used. Would prefer we state that certain aspects of the principles. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): this is good refinement IMO David McAuley: I agree w/Paul avri doria: caveat ++ avri doria: why not. it is all the same, but sounds safer. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): correct @Paul "aspects" are good guidance avri doria: as it is something to be considered later in the light of circumstances at the time, indefiniate caveats really netierh add nor substract anything. avri doria: i am saying it doesn't matter at all. Anne Aikman-Scalese - comments from AD and SLO - importance to keep ASPECTS in the draft - and do not understand MS's proposal. Kavouss Arasteh - difficult to follow the proposals. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Avri - I think I misread your comment. matthew shears: I retract my proposed edit - apologies Niels ten Oever: "However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value" Avri Doria - Like PT's proposal - good sentence. Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Re AAS point - I always like ASPECTS and I have been conssistent on this. Agree with AD and it is a good sentence. Think we are getting there. matthew shears: do we need the "at least"!?? Tatiana Tropina: now we don't Greg Shatan: We should take out the "at least" David McAuley: agree w Greg to take out 'at least' Niels ten Oever: If we say 'at least' then we're saying it can never be all Niels ten Oever: that would be in contention with the later sentence in which we say we don't analyze all Niels ten Oever: sorry, if we remove 'at least' David McAuley: I also agree that using adobe while live-drafting in GDoc is very hard to keep pace with. Greg Shatan: We should make sure to bring the language back in to the Chat as Niels has done. Paul Twomey: I could live with deleting at least But will leave to others Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Cheryl and David Niels ten Oever: However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value at least certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. Paul Twomey - GS, TT and MS are correct regarding AT LEAST. Greg Shatan - the AT LEAST causes waffling and could be considered and endorsement of the whole which would be beyond our consensus - Niels ten Oever: so it is a qualifying statement Niels ten Oever: That is a good point matthew shears: could does not qualify - it might it might not - which is appropriate Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that is a risk IMO @Tatiana as Paul notes it could be read to indicate a minimum requirement up to 100% ( shudder from me) Niels ten Oever - have removed AT LEAST since this seems to be the consensus. Niels ten Oever: However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. David McAuley: we need a medium Niels, thank you. Kavouss Arasteh - agree with removing AT LEAST. (last part of second paragraph of Consideration - as proposed by AAS). Anne Aikman-Scalese - comment made in the spirit of good clear governance. Request for Reconsideration and IRP will be avaialble for the community - this is good - but when considering policies there should be less severe mechanisms which would be less expensive but could provide resolution.So since the more formal mechanisms have been mentionned we should make efforts to encourage alternate mechanisms. Kavouss Arasteh - If this is a CONSIDERATION then we should not use MUST. Niels ten Oever 2: These bodies must also consider Human Rights grievance procedures to be implemented such as Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process as well as any less formal steps to be taken prior to the invoking of either of these more formal procedures. David McAuley: thanks Niels Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Readily agree to replace "must" with "need" . Good suggestions David McAuley - support both AAS and KA points - this would make sense. Greg Shatan - Laudable goal - this is not the time, place or group to do this. As such this sentence should be removed. This could be a rabbit hole avri doria: remember to cross talk this to the ombudsman group if we go this way. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes essential if we do decide @Avri Tatiana Tropina: I am not comfortable with the words "must" and I agree with Greg. David McAuley: I would not object to removal matthew shears: I agree with Greg - I am uncomfortable for the same reasons David McAuley: also did not understand "more formal procedures" Erich Schweighofer: Agree with Greg. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Niels ten Oever - seems there is support to remove this text. I will re-circulate a new draft this week. Adjourned.