- Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Practical Meaning of Involvement in the UNGPs
by Niels ten Oever Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear all, This new paper might be of value for discussing and considering the Ruggie Principles, because it exactly aims to be 'exploring the practical meaning of cause, contribute, and directly linked' in the Ruggie Principles. Some of these concepts have played an important role in earlier discussions and I thought this might be of your interest. http://www.enodorights.com/assets/pdf/debevoise-enodo-practical-meaning-of-… Happy reading! 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

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 21 | 21 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

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/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… 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

1 0

Proposed Agenda February 21 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 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. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team 3. AOB Please find also attached the current version of the work-in-progress considerations document, which at this moment is a rough sketch for discussion in the drafting group. It can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… I'm greatly looking forward to talk to you all tomorrow. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

6 9

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 20 | 14 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #20 here; https://community.icann.org/x/6LPDAw 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 item * Everyone should keep working on the document. Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat): 13 participants at start of call 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels Ten Oever: No phone only. No apologies received no updates to SOIs. Any updates to the agenda (none). 2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team Niels ten Oever: Work in progress: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… Niels Ten Oever: (going through the document from the top). “Which Specific HR conventions or instruments....” - Use GUIDE vs Operationalize at the bottom. David McAuley: thanks to NTO for a good editing of the document. Niels Ten Oever: Next part - "Policies and Frameworks" - again GUIDE vs Operationalize. (no comments). Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: sounds good so far Niels Ten Oever:"Consistent with ICANN's existing..." - Getting into the weeds here David McAuley (RySG): This section seems fine to me Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: are we saying that all SO s are possibly affected? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Rudi - This is one of the discussions in the drafting team. There are some who think all SOs and ACs are affected and must take into account the HR- FOI. Others seems to say that, for example, this does not affect any GAC procedures at all but I don't know why. Niels Ten Oever: (no comments). "Consider how the interpretation of this....." (reading). Kavouss Arasteh: Can we "interpret" this Bylaw? do we have the right to do this? Anne Aikman-Scalese: good question. Its the obligation of the Board in terms of who is responsible for compliance with the HR Bylaw. Kavouss Arasteh: There have been changes since last time - uncertain how this affects the GAC and its advice. Paragraph has to be revised - there cannot be interpretation of the bylaw. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: The GAC will have regard to human rights when formulating its advice but the Board could conceivably reject the advice on grounds that to do so would conflict with the commitment on human rights. The Board would have to come back to the GAC to explain this. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was also discussion in the drafting team regarding the use of the word "commitment" in two places in this document. "Commitment" is a term of art in the ByLaws and that word should be changed to either "Core Value to respect" or "obligation to respect" Human Rights. An ICANN "commitment" is something else with a different meaning for the definition of the Board's fiduciary duties. Rudi Daniel WS2 HR: i also agree with Anne's comment... Niels Ten Oever: KA - noted. But there is value in completing the reading. Kavouss Arasteh: Option 1 delete first line +1 word of second line, option 2 change Bylaw location. Rest is fine. David Mcauley: Suggestion is "in order to operationalize etc." I would delete. SOACs have such different remits that they could have 3 different takes on this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see your point David Niels Ten Oever: So recommendation was to have a CCWG-HR and DM noted that it might not make sense to have 1 for all the SOACs because they are different. Andreea Brambilla: +1 David, I was interested in some explanation for why both PDPs and a CCWG are proposed for implementation. If it's a trade-off, that should be elaborated here. Andreea Brambilla: At least that way we are laying out all options (i.e. 'fully considering') Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Mark - I agree with you as to not understanding why the language re GAC says "There is no change". There must be a change for every body in the community that makes policy recommendations. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re: PDP versus CCWG, I think it would be best if Human Rights are considered and included in the ongoing PDPS. In particular, these processes should be integrated in a manner that does not hold up another round - in particular a possible priority round for Community Applications. (these views are my own and not those of the IPC.) Niels Ten Oever: The last part " the affect if any .." (reading) Mark Carvell: AC's provide "advice" they do not develop policy they simply advise those who advise policy. The first sentence has no point - the key is the second sentence which applies to all ACs. The GAC has a WG on HRs and we will consider HR when developing advice for the Board. David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mark and agree second sentence is key point Niels Ten Oever: So MK remove the first sentece? (correct) and applies to all AC's. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with MK the GAC will consider HRs. Agree that it applies to all ACs because but GAC advice has special status. Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with MK on first sentence. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it's fine to delete first sentence but shouldn't we be saying that GAC will take into account the FOI- HR when rendering public policy advice to the Board - as is incumbent on the GNSO? Cheryl Langdon-Orr: the ALAC is different we influence SO's where the policy is being developed and as such more along the lines of what DM was proposing where SO's are individual. So no need for special HR rules for ALAC. David McAuley (RySG): I actually think the second sentence is more accurate than that @Anne, i.e. that the Bd will take FoI into account as it considers GAC advice. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks CLO, helpful. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ David - yes but that is accurate as to ALL SOs and ACs and other advisors, not just the GAC. Niels Ten Oever: Can we keep working on the document so we can have a document to review in Copenhagen. Kavouss Arasteh: Agree delete first sentence of the last part. Also the first line of the previous part. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with the deletion of 1st sentence Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Also agree to delete first sentence in last part. Do not understand why we cannot state that the GAC will consider HR's in defining its advice. Also wrt to balancing of core values - we seem to be unwilling to talk about the balancing between the human rights - the rights of authors must be balanced with privacy and free expressions on a case by case basis. This balancing should be discussed in Copenhagen. David McAuley (RySG): Good points Anne but I think we are avoiding specific examples for a reason - balancing will be done in discrete circumstances. I personally think this doc is not for granular HR discussion Kavouss Arasteh: responding to AAS - cross referencing, given HR in in the Bylaws, is therefore covered by the fact that the GAC advice must be consistent with the ICANN Bylaws - if we mention the GAC vs the HR then we have to also add it to gNSO and ccNSO. Mark Carvell: Support KA point. Appreciate ASS raising this point and should be discussed in the GAC. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ DAvid - We are avoiding the elephant in the room if we do not discuss balancing among Human Rights. This is true in part because the work of the CCWP has not to date included any literature on the rights of authors as far as I know. Though it was agreed to incorporate this in Dublin. In truth, there is no free expression without protecting the rights of authors and artists to the integrity of their work. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): cultural DNA in many cases yes Mark Niels Ten Oever: Adjourning the call. Decisions: · * General agreement to delete the first sentence of the last section. Action Items: · * Everyone should keep working on the document.

1 0

Proposed agenda meeting February 14 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 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. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team 3. AOB Please find also attached the current version of the work-in-progress considerations document, which at this moment is a rough sketch for discussion in the drafting group. It can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… I'm greatly looking forward to talk to you all 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

2 7

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 7 February 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #19 here; https://community.icann.org/x/26XDAw 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) Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat): 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc No audio only participants. No SOI updates. No addition to agenda 2. The way forward vis a vis Public Comment of FoI Drafting team has been considering the bullets from annex 12. Their conclusion is that there is still work to be done by the subgroup, and recommendation made to hold off the public comment on the FoI, till a single document is produced that would consider all the bullets of annex 12. Subgroup consensus to proceed per this recommendation. This update will be presented at the CCWG plenary tomorrow. 3. High level overview of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team - Preamble Kavouss: I think we should have only 1 document, not 2 separate documents. Tatiana: drafting team agrees that there should be only 1 document. The document presented is only a working document to discuss how we plan to address all the bullet points. All additions coming out of this exercise will be integrated in the FoI document. - Discussed bullet #1 - "Consider wich specific HR conventions ... " Drafting team will include feedback received in document for futher review / discussion - Discussed bullet # 2 - "Policies and frameworks..." Discussed the necessity to distinguish between ICANN org and ICANN community Kavouss: I disagree to make a distinction between ICANN org and ICANN community This topic needs to be further discussed - bullet # 3 - "Consistent with ICANN's existing processes..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team - bullet #4 - Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this bylaw..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team - bullet #5 - Consider what effect, if any, this bylaw will have..." Greg walked through the suggestions prepared by drafting team Kavouss: we need to further discuss this document, suggests to not make distinctions between groups. 4. AOB The drafting team will continue to work on this document based on the inputs received today. Subgroup will continue reviewing this document in the next meeting of the subgroup. Next subgroup meeting: Tuesday 15 Feb @19:00 UTC

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting February 7 - 19:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Ladies and gentlemen, I regret that a meeting out of the office has run long, and I will be unlikely to be able to participate in today's call. Thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office AAikman(a)lrrc.com ____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:58 AM To: ws2-hr(a)icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting February 7 - 19:00 UTC 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. The way forward vis a vis Public Comment of FoI 3. High level overview of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team 4. AOB Please find also attached the current version of the work-in-progress considerations document, which at this moment is a rough sketch for discussion in the drafting group. It can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AIt… I'm greatly looking forward to talk to you all this evening. 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

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

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 31 Jan 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #18 here; https://community.icann.org/x/ZJzDAw 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) Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 1. Administrivia Roll call will be taken from the AC room. No participants on audio Apologies: Matthew Shears, Jorge Cancio, No updates to SOI. Review of agenda - Greg: suggest to review the bullet points in annex 12 point by point. Greg will send a slide to display in this call. 2. The way forward Niels provided summary of email exchanges with co-chairs, and summary of mailing list discussion. • Kavouss: we should not open the discussion again, but mandate the small group who drafted the FoI to flag if anything is missing from Annex 12. • John Laprise: I would suggest to open up for public comment now, and take it from there. • Greg: the co-chairs have asked us to confirm if we have covered Annex 12, so we should go through each bullet point against the FoI, and determine if each point has been taken in consideration. The drafting team did a textual analysis of the bylaw, our understanding was that the consideration of all bullet points was a separate task. We need to confirm that we are done before going to public comment. • Niels: I am not sure if the Annex 12 mandates 1 or 2 documents. • David: agree with Greg, we should take the time to consider the different points. There could be 2 documents if necessary. • Kavouss: I agree we should verify that the FoI considers all points of Annex 12, but suggest it should be done by the drafting team or another team, and not leave it to public comment. • Anne: I agree that we may not have considered all the points in Annex 12 while developing the FoI, and these points need to be discussed more in depth. • Niels: let's go through the bullets one by one, and see where we are. Review of bullet points of Annex 12: bullet #1: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. • Greg: I think we did consider this bullet but we have not concluded. • David: I agree. • Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think we have considered the first bullet point. • David McAuley (RySG): I don't se it a a non-answer given that the bylaw 1.2(b)(viii) ha s to be read with this and it does point to applicable law • Tatiana Tropina: we didn't consider it while drafting • David McAuley (RySG): this might highlight one aspect of making "suggestions" - we could perhaps suggest HR instruments ICANN might consider but not say "should" in FOI • Greg Shatan: The question is which instruments should ICANN use? What is our answer? • Tatiana: We have not considered these bullet points, we have done a textual analysis of the bylaws. I don't believe this FoI is ready for public comment. • Kavouss: opposed to any other course of action than the one I previously indicated • Niels: there are different possible ways forward. • Greg: I support the suggestion of Kavouss. I think it would be premature to send out the FoI to Public Comment. When we consider the different bullets of Annex 12, we might want to modify what we have written in the FoI. The co-chairs have asked us if we have considered Annex 12, and we have not. • Anne: I agree that the discussion should be kept at the level of the subgroup, and we should answer to the co-chairs that we have not considered all the bullet points of Annex 12. • Niels: we don't have to answer everything right away. Suggest to continue the discussion next week, and consider next steps then. • David: how about we designate a leader for each bullet point to kick off discussions on each topic? • Several voice opinion in favor of forming a group to prepare the discussion. • Niels: we will form a small group and the group can start working on considering the bullets before our next meeting next week. 3. AOB Next subgroup call: Tuesday, February 7th, 19:00 UTC. Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 12.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/Presentation%20Me…> · Annex 12 Bullet Points.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/Annex%2012%20Bull…> · ProposedFoI-HRforCCWG.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151204/ProposedFoI-HRfor…>

1 0

Slides and Agenda
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Dear all, While I tried not to do it, I could not resist but create a bit formalized agenda for our session. Please find the proposed agenda underneath and the slides attached. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. The way forward a. summary of e-mail exchanges b. revise the FoI (before/after public comment)? c. one or two documents (FoI/suggestions)? d. response to the CCWG / co-chairs 3. AOB Looking forward to talk in 15 minutes. 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