[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 13 | 22 November

MSSI Secretariat mssi-secretariat at icann.org
Wed Nov 23 22:19:32 UTC 2016

Hello all,

Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #13 here;  https://community.icann.org/x/lI7DAw

A copy of the action items and notes may be found below.

Thank you.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
 Action Items

·         ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of themAction Items

·         ACTION (Drafting team)  come up with new proposal for 2nd reading.

·         ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal

1. Administrivia | Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc.
·         No audio only.
·         No SOI updates
·         No updates to agenda
·         Legal questions now submitted to ICANN Legal
ACTION (David McAuley): have the questions being distributed to our list, just to keeping track of them
2. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI
       1st reading continued
       f. ‘This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law’

        *   Avri: The interpretation here seems stronger than the initial text.
        *   Greg: I don't see that as stronger.
        *   Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): this sentence is about "obligations" - it does not prevent ICANN from "taking HR into account" beyond that
        *   Group approves this interpretation.
        g. ‘‘This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties’

·         Kavouss: second part ("or coerce third parties" ) is not quite clear - could we define the language being used ("third parties": who are these)?

·         David: agrees, there appears to be a disconnect between the 1st and 2nd part

·         Greg: implicitely refers back to Ruggie's principle

·         Tatiana Tropina: so I don't think anyone argues about concepts but just about the clarity of this text

·         David: I think the problem starts with the use of the word "impose"

·         Kavouss: "of those third parties" also needs to be clarified

·         Avri: does it mean that there should be compliance of contracted parties?

·         Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): "without prejudice to what is stated elsewhere"?

·         Niels ten Oever: Maybe this: This part of the bylaw draws the clear line between “respect” for human rights as a Core Value and any attempt to extend
the Bylaw into requiring ICANN to take enforcement action to any other party or ask other parties to take enforcement action.

·         ACTION (Drafting team)  come up with new proposal for 2nd reading.
        2nd reading

·         Kavouss: suggest we wait till next meeting before we do the 2nd reading.

·         Niels: 1st reading was done during last meeting, there was time between the 2 readings.
               a.‘within the scope of its Mission’

·         agreement from the group
               b.‘within the scope of other Core Values’ (with minor changes as per discussion last week)

·         Kavouss: replace "described" by "stipulated"

·         Greg: we don't nee "legal" before "hierarchy" in the last paragraph

·         Jorge: hierarchy could be moral, pragmatical etc. This is a legal test, so it should be a "legal hierarchy",

·         Greg: I disagree that it's a legal balancing test.

·         Tatiana: I agree, it's not a legal test, and there is no hierarchy between core values.

·         Jorge: why are we reopening this discussion? if so, there are other I could reopen too.

·         Tatiana:  We could say that there is no pre-existing hierarchy, or no predetermined hierarchy.

·         Kavouss Arasteh: Retention or otherwise of term"Legal" does not create any problem .However, it retention may give the impression that there are other types of
hierarchy than legal,thus I suggest to remove it
ACTION (drafting team): come up with new proposal
·   Not discussed
               d. ‘internationally recognized human rights’
·   Not discussed
               e. ‘as required by applicable law’
·   Not discussed
3. AOB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161123/1465293d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list