December 2016 - Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda meeting December 6 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the Human Rights Policy and Process Questions a.The policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights 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 proces and: Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. c. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) 3. AOB Please find also attached the current version of the proposed working document, which at this moment is a rough sketch for discussion in the group. It can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… I'm greatly looking forward to discuss this document with all of you tomorrow. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 4

HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 8, 2017

Jan. 8, 2017

Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • 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. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

7 22

draft e-mail to CCWG plenary
by Niels ten Oever Dec. 27, 2016

Dec. 27, 2016

Dear all, As promised, please find my draft e-mail to the CCWG plenary, as a follow-up to our most recent call, underneath. It would be great if we could discuss the document on this list, but if you have concrete edits would you be so kind to put them on this Google Doc in suggest mode? https://docs.google.com/document/d/16obX_TdZ8zkhX1BsTqPg0NjwTdhd9n0MBijZQeF… Thanks! Niels Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to have a close look at our mandate and found out that there are different ways of interpreting this. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • 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. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on implementation, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration of the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to give more guidance to the considerations mentioned above. 3. We will need to produce a new document with examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to do a test on specific cases to see whether the FoI suffices. We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this lead us into quite detailed discussions on how and where Human Rights Impact Assessments could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions it felt that we we're going in too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. Another option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue a high-level recommendation for the chartering of a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically work on the steps of implementation, and advise different SO's and AC's on how they could implement this in their process, as well as discussing measures for ICANN the corporation. These are all options that we would like to bring in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potential other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a vitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to complete our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

5 5

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 20 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #17 here; https://community.icann.org/x/n5TDAw 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) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc · No updates to SOI noted · No questions or comments on draft presented to the Plenary for reading. Very positive result · Working with standard drafting team, wondering if we should take a step back, and discuss our path forward. 2. Evaluation, or: reculer pour mieux sauter a. To what extend does our work entail recommendations for implementation? If so, how detailed should we be? Is this in our mandate or remit? b. Should we review the FoI in the light of the tension between annex 6 and 12) ? · Annex 6: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723827/Annex%2006%20-%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> · Annex 12: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723827/Annex%2012%20-%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): To sum up my thoughts on the pending assignements: with the FoI we have covered everything relevant to the interpretation. What is left are aspects of implementation: 1) what policies and frameworks do we need or do we need to improve; 2) how do we do this in a bottom-up and multistakeholder fashion; 3) how does this interact with existing and future policies and procedures; 4) how does this impact on GAC Advice; 5) what is the effect on ICANN operations. We have to decide how deep and far we can and want to get on these 5 topics... · David: I agree that the FoI is done, and we should discuss terms of implementation. · Paul: it seems to me that the FoI should be referred to as necessary by ICANN moving forward, and it's not for us to nail all the changes that it could imply. · Greg: we are not asked to implement the bylaw, in the ICANN sense of implementation. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we have to touch on the 5 left issues on a very general level, giving some guidance and recommendations on how we think that ICANN (the corporation and the community) should deal with these topics. Agree with Greg: we do not implement, we just give some guidance on how we think implementation should be tackled considering the 5 pending topics we have according to Annex 6 and 12. · Rudi Daniel: agree Greg....on providing signposts as within the framework of interpretation. · Kavouss Arasteh 4: We have done what we asked to do and there is no more works to be done · avri doria: if we have a question about our scope, why don’t we go back to the main group for an answer? · Anne Aikman: I agree with Avri. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We can go back to the CCWG Plenary with some idea on what we would prefer to do... · Greg: I agree we should maybe make recommendations or give options to the plenary on how we'd like to handle this, rather than ask an open question. · Niels proposes to draft an email for the CCWG plenary, explaining what we are struggling with and listing several scenarios to move forward. · Anne: would we use the rest of this call to discuss the content of this email? · Kavouss Arasteh 4: This group should not be engaged to reconciliating between annexes 6 and 12 · Niels: we have 3 options: 1) we are done 2) create a new document with the other elements that we should cover 3) providing examples and adding to the FoI · Greg: there is a 4th option: to test the FoI. · Anne: we could ask the plenary for examples if we were to pursue option 3). · Show of hands: 5-6 Participants agree with this approach. 3. AOB

1 0

Proposed agenda meeting December 20 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda. As we're closing the year I would like to propose a bit different agenda then usual, let's use the time we have to day for a bit of reflection, or as the French might say: 'reculer pour mieux sauter', in others words: take a step back in order to jump further. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Evaluation, or: reculer pour mieux sauter a. To what extend does our work entail recommendations for implementation? If so, how detailed should we be? Is this in our mandate or remit? b. Should we review the FoI in the light of the tension between annex 6 and 12) ? 3. AOB Looking forward to meet you all later today in this years last call. All the best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 0

Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for input on Human Rights questions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear Niels and HR subgroup members. I'm forwarding the replies from ICANN legal to the HR questions. These replies haven't been reviewed by the legal committee but in order to expedite processes we can review in parallel. If you have any comments or questions, we will be happy to help. Kind regards, León Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 13 de diciembre de 2016, 7:59:40 PM CST > Para: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, John Jeffrey <JJ(a)ICANN.org> > Cc: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for input on Human Rights questions > > Dear Léon, > > Here are ICANN’s responses: > > >> As part of the CCWG-Legal Committee works, we hereby request for your answers to the following questions related to the HRs subgroup: >> >> 1. With respect to ICANN legal’s understanding of the definition >> of “applicable law”: >> >> a. Has ICANN legal developed an understanding of the meaning of >> the term “applicable law”? > > Yes. ICANN’s understanding of the term “applicable law” is largely consistent with the CCWG WS2 Sub-Team on Human Rights excerpt that is found below. Applicable law could also mean laws that are applicable and binding upon others, and not just ICANN, based on the facts and circumstances of any individual situation. Applicable law can also be agreed upon by parties to a contract, such as identifying what law will apply in the event of a dispute. >> >> >> b. If so, does that understanding apply in the context of the new >> bylaw at Article 1.2(b)(viii)? > > The concept of “applicable law” does not change dependent upon whether the term is used in Bylaws or elsewhere. >> >> >> c. Would the following definition of “applicable law,” currently >> under consideration by the CCWG WS2 Sub-Team on Human Rights, be >> consistent with either or both of those?: >> >> <quote>: Applicable law refers to the body of law that binds >> ICANN at any given time, in any given circumstance and in any relevant >> jurisdiction. It consists of statutes, rules, regulations, etcetera, >> as well as judicial opinions, where appropriate. It is a dynamic >> concept inasmuch as laws, regulations, etcetera, change over time. >> Applicable law can have disparate impacts on ICANN around the globe: >> for example, if ICANN employs personnel in different jurisdictions >> then it must observe the appropriate labour laws in those various >> locales. Applicable law is thus a large body of law that eludes our >> ability to catalogue, but it is ascertainable in the context of a >> specific question or issue. </quote> >> >> d. Please share the applicable understanding(s). > > See above. >> >> >> 2. In the view of ICANN legal, what does the term “Respect” mean >> according to the bylaws (in relation to Core Values)? > > As supported through the CCWG-Accountability WS1 conversations, “respect” denotes that ICANN is not in an enforcement role, but that – as ICANN does today – respects the laws and regulations to which it is bound and acts within them. >> >> >> 3. In the view of ICANN legal, what is the relationship between >> core values and commitments in general; and the HR core value and >> commitments in particular? > > The ICANN Bylaws are clear on the relationship between core values and commitments: "(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect ICANN's fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN's activities. The specific way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively, to any given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation where one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing Core Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN's Mission." > > It should be noted that to the extent the HR Core Value relies on ICANN adhering to relevant obligations of applicable law, ICANN is not authorized to violate laws. > > 4. In the view of ICANN legal, how does the balancing process > between core values, as described in the bylaws, take place? Is it > documented? > > There is not yet a documented process for the balancing of core values, however ICANN continues to refine its practice of producing rationales in support of decisions of the Board that identify the core values guiding a particular decision. Community groups producing recommendations for the Board to consider are also encouraged to begin documenting the core values supporting their recommendations. It is important to note that many of the items identified under the revised core values section are well integrated across all of ICANN’s work today, for example, the recognition of where ICANN’s policy roles start and stop; and seeking and supporting diverse participation in policy development at ICANN. As set out in the Bylaws, ICANN is always striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of different stakeholders, which could impact how competition in the registration of domain names is introduced and promoted, for example. As discussed above, the balancing test cannot be used to support an outcome in violation of applicable laws. > > > — > Samantha Eisner > Deputy General Counsel, ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, California 90094 > USA > Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 > > From: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> > Date: Monday, December 12, 2016 at 5:59 AM > To: Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <JJ(a)ICANN.org> > Cc: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for input on Human Rights questions > > Dear Sam and John, > > I believe we have not had either confirmation of reception nor reply to the questions below. If you have in fact replied, I might have missed it. > > Could you please update us on the status of the replies for these questions? When can we expect to have the answers? > > As you may be aware we have a plenary call tomorrow and this will be an agenda item so we appreciate any information you can provide. > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 30/11/2016, a las 09:24, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> escribió: >> >> Dear John and Sam, >> >> >> As part of the CCWG-Legal Committee works, we hereby request for your answers to the following questions related to the HRs subgroup: >> >> 1. With respect to ICANN legal’s understanding of the definition >> of “applicable law”: >> >> a. Has ICANN legal developed an understanding of the meaning of >> the term “applicable law”? >> >> b. If so, does that understanding apply in the context of the new >> bylaw at Article 1.2(b)(viii)? >> >> c. Would the following definition of “applicable law,” currently >> under consideration by the CCWG WS2 Sub-Team on Human Rights, be >> consistent with either or both of those?: >> >> <quote>: Applicable law refers to the body of law that binds >> ICANN at any given time, in any given circumstance and in any relevant >> jurisdiction. It consists of statutes, rules, regulations, etcetera, >> as well as judicial opinions, where appropriate. It is a dynamic >> concept inasmuch as laws, regulations, etcetera, change over time. >> Applicable law can have disparate impacts on ICANN around the globe: >> for example, if ICANN employs personnel in different jurisdictions >> then it must observe the appropriate labour laws in those various >> locales. Applicable law is thus a large body of law that eludes our >> ability to catalogue, but it is ascertainable in the context of a >> specific question or issue. </quote> >> >> d. Please share the applicable understanding(s). >> >> 2. In the view of ICANN legal, what does the term “Respect” mean >> according to the bylaws (in relation to Core Values)? >> >> 3. In the view of ICANN legal, what is the relationship between >> core values and commitments in general; and the HR core value and >> commitments in particular? >> >> 4. In the view of ICANN legal, how does the balancing process >> between core values, as described in the bylaws, take place? Is it >> documented? >> Saludos, >> >> As the answers to these questions will enable to continue the work of the Human Rights sub-group on different topics, we would kindly ask to have an answer to them at your earliest convenience. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> León >> >

4 7

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 16 | 13 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

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/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 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.

1 0

Proposed agenda meeting December 13 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Discussion of FoI during plenary on Wednesday 14 – 13:00 UTC 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the Human Rights Policy and Process Questions a. The policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights 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 proces and: Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. c. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) 3. AOB Please find also attached the current version of the proposed working document, which at this moment is a rough sketch for discussion in the group. It can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… I'm greatly looking forward to discuss this document with all of you today. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 3

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, for WS2 HR. Text.
by Rudolph Daniel Dec. 7, 2016

Dec. 7, 2016

ReferenceText : ICANN should also consider ensuring that it does not violate human rights in its operations. ICANN might consider instruments such as HRIA to carry out a preliminary assessment of the effect of its operations, however, this is up to the ICANN corporation to decide and implement. The results of such IAs should be incorporated in ICANN’s annual reporting. My thoughts on reading the above: Icann's operations policies are not subject to a policy development process ( PDP ), but community input is generally sought via public comment. If the SO s were to consider implementation of HRIA at the PDP level, maybe the ICANN Board should consider assessment and oversight of HRIA on its policies at the 'Process and Systems risk Committee' level. This board committee is currently responsible for the establishment and implementation of standards, controls, limits and guidelines related to risk assessment and risk management, including but not limited to financial, legal and operational risks and other risks concerning ICANN’s reputation and ethical standards. Therefore, respect for human Rights, becomes weaved into ICANN 's reputation and ethical standards and as it relates to the public interest. Such a move however would probably require board consideration of a HRIA appointment to the 'Process and Systems risk committee' & other implications not yet apparent. RD

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 15 | 6 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #15 here; https://community.icann.org/x/s5PDAw 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) Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc * Audio Only: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Kavouss Arasteh * Roll call will be taken from the AC room * No SOI updates. 2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the Human Rights Policy and Process Questions * Shared draft document in the AC room. * Link to Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… * Greg presented an overview of the document: * Left-hand column has the additional points that we were asked to work on * The right-hand column has early draft of responses. * Not a lot of work has been done on this until now. * Seeking feedback on this initial draft. * Niels: This work is different from the work on the FoI. 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 introduced the section. * David McAuley: this may be a little bit broad. There are things we could suggest. * Greg: We should identify policies or frameworks that need to be developed or enhanced. 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 introduced the section * Greg: the questions and the answer don't really fit together. First have to answer the 1st question. Suggested implementations will have to be developed further downstream. * David: agrees with Greg. Should develop HR Impact Assessment. * Erich Schweighofer: A full Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) seems to be a very long shot at c. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Niels: wondering where this question came from in WS1 * Greg: need to look into where it came from, but don't see a change needed. We may need to clarify our understanding of the point raised here. * David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg and implication of Niels question - not sure where this question came from but think the comment is a good one. * To summarize, this document is a good start. We need to clarify the definitions and our understanding of the questions raised. 3. AoB * Javier asking what areas of human rights this subgroup is focusing on. * Niels: the subgroup is following instructions from the CCWG proposal, and now from the HR-FoI that was produced by this subgroup. * David asking that whenever we plan to do a reading, it be clearly noted in the meeting agenda. Documents Presented * Presentation Meeting 14.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148979/Presentation%20Me…> * HumanRightsPolicyandProcessQuestions(1).pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148979/HumanRightsPolicy…>

1 0