Human Rights Meeting #21 (21 February @ 19:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
Sub-group members: Alan Greenberg, Andreea Brambilla, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Wayne, Janet Shih Hajek, John Laprise, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Niels ten Oever, Tatiana Tropina (16)
Observers and guests: Beth Bacon, Irene Borissova (2)
Staff: Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Elizabeth Andrews, Karen Mulberry (5)
Apologies: Jorge Cancio, Rudi Daniel, Anne Aikman-Scalese
** If your name is missing from the attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
2. Discussion of work-in-progress considerations document by drafting team
3. AOB
Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat) [ : = from chat // - = staff notes ]
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/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit
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
Action items
- Participants to review FOI Google doc, include suggestions and discuss points on the list.
Documents
Chat from AC Room
Brenda Brewer: (2/21/2017 12:29) Good day all and welcome to Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #21 on 21 February 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Brenda Brewer: (12:36) HR Policy & Process google doc link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY_edit&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=FqQKVBYW7vM5KJg6JaDgy68awwryyXQfyZvHvK5P8kk&s=woVQlk-6063cljddboo860tHkcIltWVEjsyXpmwdUMw&e=
Herb Waye Ombuds: (12:56) Hi folks
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:57) Hello all
Markus Kummer: (12:57) Hi everyone
Tatiana Tropina: (12:58) Hi all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:00) Please mute if not speaking
David McAuley (RySG): (13:00) 4154 is me
Brenda Brewer: (13:01) Thank you, David!
Tatiana Tropina: (13:02) Anne brought her apoligies as well
Tatiana Tropina: (13:03) what exactly would be the benefit of this? Are they aware what we are doing? Are they familiar with ICANN?
David McAuley (RySG): (13:04) sorry - had connection issue, missed a bit but in now
Tatiana Tropina: (13:04) or are the Ruggie salespersons? Sorry for being harsh
Tatiana Tropina: (13:04) well we are open to anyone so I don't mind
avri doria: (13:04) are wee doing a Ruggie slam again?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:05) but they are joining at the very end so I hope they would understand that we had discussions
David McAuley (RySG): (13:05) when will that be, do we know
Greg Shatan: (13:05) I have just joined the call.
avri doria: (13:12) Strong support for proposal 2
Tatiana Tropina: (13:13) I don't know if "I don't know whether alleged by some" is an appropriate text for such a document
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:13) there is no sound
Tatiana Tropina: (13:14) 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
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:15) Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:15) I am disconnected
Brenda Brewer: (13:15) calling you back, Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) I do not agree with the changes
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) I AM DISCONNECTED
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:16) Hello Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:17) I am disconnected
Brenda Brewer: (13:17) your phone should be ringing, Kavouss. Thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:17) why I was disconnected pls
Brenda Brewer: (13:18) Sometimes this happens on Adobe Connect. I can assure you it was purely accidental.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:19) But it has happened to me always
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) No but to make the second para in the FoI we have to really consider
Tatiana Tropina: (13:19) because I wonder where this consideration that they are useful is coming from? Have we agreed on that?
David McAuley (RySG): (13:19) Thanks Matthew, fair points
Tatiana Tropina: (13:20) I mean have we really considered? And this actually goes together with what Matt is saying
matthew shears: (13:20) these 3 proposal are fraught with difficulties
matthew shears: (13:21) yes, we have been here before ...
avri doria: (13:21) "could be used as a guide" works for me. but i am more than happy to explore a multitude of wordings.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) I strognly disagree
Erich Schweighofer: (13:21) Kavous Arasteh is right - Ruggie is for commercial companies.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:21) three people from the drafting team were not on the call to raise the issues
avri doria: (13:22) no it is for companies.
Greg Shatan: (13:22) People from different stakeholder groups, I may add.
avri doria: (13:22) perhaps more pointed to the commercial affairs. and we cannot deny that ICANN is inbovled in commerce. it just does it 'not for profit'stle. but commerce it is.
Erich Schweighofer: (13:23) No public purpose ...?
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:23) Tatiana, pls do not impose your views
avri doria: (13:23) ... is invovled in in commerce ...
avri doria: (13:23) public purpose is the reason. commerce is the method.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:24) could be useful
Niels ten Oever: (13:24) It's not like we never discuss this.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) we have to have at least the discussion
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) on the option 1 or 2 we never had a discussion whether we have this conclusion or not exactly
Tatiana Tropina: (13:25) so I don't agree with having a sentense just because it sounds nice.
matthew shears: (13:26) 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: (13:26) I agree that we can say thay ICANN org or community can decide for themselves
Tatiana Tropina: (13:26) what to do with Ruggie
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) we have to be crystal clear twhat this group agreed or disagreed upon. I am not against Ruggie if ICANN wil decide to commit. Fine.
avri doria: (13:27) 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: (13:27) 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: (13:27) 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.[they do not have be guided by ...
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) Avri, I am fine with the sentence that we advise to consider if the find this necessary
Tatiana Tropina: (13:27) fine. Why not. But let's not confuse anyone with what we agreed upon and what we considered
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:28) Secretatriat , pls also include my comments like other comments
avri doria: (13:28) /9on the notes, there was a not missing in my first sentence)
Greg Shatan: (13:28) And that's why significant points should not be decided at a single meeting.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:29) Trying folks
Greg Shatan: (13:29) 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.
Greg Shatan: (13:29) 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: (13:29) David, agree! A very good point. ICANN can cosider Ruggie but we certainly can't decide for them and we haven't agreed what is useful
avri doria: (13:29) agree not binding.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:30) I thought that we worked under that principal Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) They have some strong language
Greg Shatan: (13:30) Sorry for the duplication, didn't even know that could happen!
matthew shears: (13:30) there is nothing to stop discussion of ruggie occuring in the future
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) and any language which is vague can still be used to go outside the limits
Tatiana Tropina: (13:30) Matt +1
avri doria: (13:30) ( greg been happenin to me too - did not understand how it happened )
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) it is appropriate when people didn't raise any issues
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) we are raising them now
avri doria: (13:31) decsions are not made in one meeting, i thought
David McAuley (RySG): (13:31) disagree respectfully w/Kavouss - if a person misses one meeting they should still be able to be heard
Tatiana Tropina: (13:31) Especially if the person was trying her best to draft and raise issues
John Laprise: (13:31) Strongly disagree with Kavous. We want a strong output document. Period.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:32) We can't rush compromising the quality
John Laprise: (13:32) agreed Tatiana
John Laprise: (13:32) Kavous: we're not in the UN we're volunteers working on Internet governance policy.
avri doria: (13:32) 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: (13:32) + 1 Tatiana
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:32) certainly we take that as rule for my WT and all other groups in ICANN I work with Avri
Tatiana Tropina: (13:33) if we are to go for the option 2, we have to consider it not as a sentense but content wise
Greg Shatan: (13:33) Agree with Avri & Cheryl. And with Niels position on where we are and the two readings rule.
matthew shears: (13:33) yes
Tatiana Tropina: (13:34) only if we consider option 2 properly
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:34) 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.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) pls submit your views to CCWG Plenary
avri doria: (13:35) Kavouss, not me. I thought that was the modlaity we worked by.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) Not at all
avri doria: (13:35) ... modality ...
avri doria: (13:35) and ICAN Consensus not Full Consensus
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:35) yup
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:35) who agreed with that modality
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:36) is it in the charter?
avri doria: (13:36) of WS2?
avri doria: (13:36) i thought so.
matthew shears: (13:37) proposal 1a and 2 wil need some serious massaging and would need to be future oreinted - the first para of proposal 1 stands as a separate statement of fact
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:37) Timing note 22 minutes left in call
David McAuley (RySG): (13:37) Well put Greg that RP is not a banned book and not THE guide
matthew shears: (13:38) its a marriage that will need a lot of work
avri doria: (13:39) I think Tatiana concern is premature
Niels ten Oever: (13:39) Might also be interested to hear the UN WG about this
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:39) tHAT IS NOT TRUE
Tatiana Tropina: (13:39) writing a sentence that we have not agreed upon in the FoI is premature
Brenda Brewer: (13:40) I can hear Kavouss
David McAuley (RySG): (13:40) I can hear Kavouss
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:40) yes as can I
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) it was discussed and we never agreed it was applicable
avri doria: (13:41) but can't hear me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:41) didn't here you Avri
David McAuley (RySG): (13:41) i did not hear you Avri
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) if we agree - fine. I am fine. I am against the sentence without a proper consideration.
Greg Shatan: (13:41) The Ruggie Principles are most certainly not "applicable law."
Tatiana Tropina: (13:41) no, they are not applicable law
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42) +1 Greg and Tatiana
Niels ten Oever: (13:42) No, they are a soft-law instrument
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42) no
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:42) no audio
David McAuley (RySG): (13:42) cant hear
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:42) not hearing
avri doria: (13:42) 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 inappporpitely. to do that up front seems premature.
John Laprise: (13:42) not hearing avri
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:42) from Avri
Greg Shatan: (13:42) Silence.
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:42) I do not hear Avri
avri doria: (13:43) i will reboot be be back. but i worte what i wanted to say
Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) I think it is as premature as recommend to include the sentense only because we like how it is written
Tatiana Tropina: (13:43) proposal two hasn't got enough consideration
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) it's still a proposal. And we for now just consider it as a sentense, a text.
Greg Shatan: (13:44) First ws have to discuss whether it could be useful.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) Yes. If we write this we have to discuss this.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:44) yes exactly - not all are useful, right?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) why are we writing they are all useful?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) there are two hands up
Tatiana Tropina: (13:45) I think Kavouss is very close to the truth
Tatiana Tropina: (13:46) under sertain circumstances if so decided by ICANN org, board or community
Niels ten Oever: (13:46) @Kavouss - added to the GoogleDOC
Tatiana Tropina: (13:46) depending on the case
matthew shears: (13:47) we are intreting and implemetning the bylaw. ias to whether it is useful for interpreting we have discussed and that we could not agree. ithere is npothing to preent them being revisited in the future and we could address them in that context
Tatiana Tropina: (13:47) Greg what if we leave the desicion whether to use them as a guidance to those who want to use?
Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) ICANN org etc
matthew shears: (13:48) we are not ruling them out
Tatiana Tropina: (13:48) with careful consideration
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) 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: (13:49) + 1 Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) +1 greg
avri doria: (13:49) except for the 'under any circumstance' goes too far
avri doria: (13:49) let the future decide what fits the bylaws not us
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) 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): (13:49) 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: (13:50) other than that. agree with Greg
Tatiana Tropina: (13:50) David, and it should be their decision, not ours - the applicability
avri doria: (13:50) yes Tatiana
matthew shears: (13:50) agree
David McAuley (RySG): (13:50) exactly - we cannot peer into the future for ICANN, thay must abide by bylaw in the day
Niels ten Oever: (13:51) Positive is nice
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:51) 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: (13:51) I am not against I am just against blanck decisions and recommendations. If ICANN decides to use Ruggie I would be only welcoming this. Well, if they decide with careful consideration :-)
avri doria: (13:51) wherreas the guidelines should still guide
David McAuley (RySG): (13:51) agree w/CLO
Tatiana Tropina: (13:51) agree with Cheryl, too
Markus Kummer: (13:52) there is room for some creative drafting!
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) this is not finished and we have to redraft and rediscuss to make everyone happy
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) Markus, there is always the room... last week it was Hilton breakfast room ;-)
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) for three of us
Greg Shatan: (13:52) Tatiana should do this one.
David McAuley (RySG): (13:54) I think the word "commitment" (last word penultimate sentence) ought to be "core value"
David McAuley (RySG): (13:55) Thanks tatiana - was clear
David McAuley (RySG): (13:55) Tatiana, that is
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:55) time check 5 minutes mark
Tatiana Tropina: (13:55) yes core value :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:55) agree David
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) Thanks David - changed.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) I dunno how we missed this, we tried to avoid this language
David McAuley (RySG): (13:56) Thank you Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) apparently there is always a room for improvement :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) we can present everyting, I agree
Tatiana Tropina: (13:56) (especially because I arrive on 11th and will attend remotely :)))
matthew shears: (13:56) always a work in progress....
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) Matt, once we will be there.....
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) future is bright.
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) !
matthew shears: (13:57) we will celebrate
Tatiana Tropina: (13:57) yes, with singing the songs
Markus Kummer: (13:57) work in progress ain' bad...
Niels ten Oever: (13:57) working together is already celebrating ;)
David McAuley (RySG): (13:58) Cake for everyone
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) Cake! Cake! I want free cakes for the whole meeting :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) C is for Cake, that's good enough for me :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (13:58) thanks everyone... talk again at Plenary... bye for now...
matthew shears: (13:58) thanks all!
Kavouss Arasteh: (13:58) Tatiana, you may not need any cake at all
Tatiana Tropina: (13:58) thanks all - looking forward to continue work!
Herb Waye Ombuds: (13:58) ciao
Markus Kummer: (13:58) bye all!
David McAuley (RySG): (13:58) Thank you drafting team, Niels, staff and all
Tatiana Tropina: (13:59) bye