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/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZ... 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.