[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP4 Meeting | 30 October

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-4 meeting on 30 October will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/mLNYAw

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Item


--> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2.

ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to
ruggie principles. 

ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite. 

ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad
Scope Language, 2) Not 
mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude
enforcement, 4) focus on 
respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB


Notes


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

Explanation by Paul Twomey on practical steps involved in changes of TLD operator (focused on ccTLD)


Concerns about ruggie principles applying to business partners: how do we interpret them with
respect to ICANN. How far do 
we wish to have ICANN accountable for human rights tests? IANA processes are constant operational
processes based on 
ruggie principles which could be contrary to human rights. Where will boundary apply here? We should
not put at risk IANA 
necessity to deal with operations. If we were to apply human rights to all operations, existing
rules will result in disputes. 

Feedback:

- It was never decision of WP4/CCWG to adopt ruggie principles as they are and implement them. They
are guidelines. If we 
need to implement them, we need to develop a proper human rights policy. It should be in WS2 but we
need to toroughly look 
at it i.e. how it is balanced. 

- We should not be going into detail in particular with ccTLDs. We should not be engaged in that in
WS1. This is not the UN's 
Human Rights Committee. We should avoid referring to countries and remain neutral.

- It has never been intent to adopt these principles for WS1. It is a high level notion of respect.
Only national courts are able to 
deal with claims. 

- It was not the intention to commit to Ruggie principles. Discussions should go to Work Stream 2.
It should be reflected briefly in 
document. There should not be commitment to ruggies principles.

- Detailed explanation of to what extent ruggie principles form accountability is clearly WS1. There
needs to be a high level 
statement in WS1. Bullet statements: ICANN will respect human rights, UN declaration, Ruggie. UN
declaration to avoid ambiguity 
and ruggie goes to WS2. 

--> agreement in Dublin not to include references to UN

- We need to be wise in understanding that we are operating in not-for-profit, ICANN will have to
follow rule of law. We need to be careful about how could activitsts could take wording we use to
Court. 

- Suggestion to add a 12th point to the Core Values in the bylaws stating "12. In its operations,
ICANN will respect internationally 
recognized human rights. "It seems a modest step that can be developed further in WS2 if necessary. 

--> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2.

- Uncomfortable with definition as it is broad. Reference to UDHR 

- In Dublin we indicated that the general language would be refined. We will need to raise issues -
resolving them is WS2 - recognizing 
them is WS1. Respect conveys set of tasks. We need to convey what attitude is towards ruggie
principles.

--> Transcript shows that we would refine option 1 language. 

- Disagree with Greg that word respect in Bylaws change will mean that we are committed to Ruggie
principle. 

- We should operate under a defined breakdown

0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3)
Focus on mission and 
scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to exclude protection, 5) AOB

- Documentation of our decisions will be needed. Input was already circulated on this. We should use
that structure. 

- Be non-political

ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to
ruggie principles. 

CONCLUSION - 1) We need to fine tune our Bylaw guidelines as a priority; 2) We need to focus on
explanatory note; 3) We need 
to assess whether transitional Bylaw would be good placeholder for framework. 

Suggest transitional Bylaw to ensure that discussion will happen in WS2. We cannot deviate
discussion into covering more issues. 
We need to refine the Bylaw language that we will be proposing, drafting rationale and consider
adding the transitional Bylaw. 

Monday, 2 Nov - 13:00 UTC call to finalize document for CCWG consideration

ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite. 

ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad
Scope Language, 2) Not 
mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude
enforcement, 4) focus on
respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB

Review of proposed addition to our PC2 document

Proposed text for transitional Bylaw.

Feedback:

- Suggest "we will work as expeditiously as possible"

- Should is a soft stop

--> This will be for lawyers who develop Bylaws 

- We are placing ourselves to 12-month window where other parties will do interpretation of work of
us and risk litigation. 

- Clarify that whole status exist so that it is clear that risk of having others interpret it for us
without guidance needs to be shut off.

--> Transitional Bylaw would put it on hold until framework is properly developed 

CONCLUSION OF CALL

We will be finalizing documents that will be in next report. We will hold a call on Monday to
analyse docs. We will be drafting 
second document that will be included in next proposal. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151030/72beb1fe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151030/72beb1fe/smime.p7s>