WP4 Meeting #6 (6 October @ 22:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
Attendees:
Sub-group Members: David McAuley, Ellen Blackler, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Leon Sanchez, Markus Kummer, Niels ten Oever, Robin Gross, Tatiana Tropina (10)
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Melissa King
Apologies: Martin Boyle
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recordings
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1jcpmae0ap/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp4-06oct15-en.mp3
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.
LS -Agenda is to work through the public comments . Documents have been produced by Tatiana Tropina and Niels ten Oever.
Ellen Blackler (EB) - excellent work on the document. Areas of divergence 2. On 1 clarify what 2 out of 23 means. Divergence #3 limiting text divergent.
NO - even with this text the commenter felt this left ICANN open to a significant risk.
GS - are only doing specific comments or will we review the entire document?
LS - need comments GS
GS - issues with number breakdowns - BT will fix.
DM - Areas for Refinement - Concern with proposed new wording in item 2. This wording would be very hard to accept ICANN would PROTECT human rights. Ok to RESPECT and not PROTECT.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: According to Article 29, ICANN doesn't respect privacy rights (EU).
LS - this should probably be included in the document (new point)
GS - we should stick to comments provided.
TT - create additional document for an assessment of the comments. The current document is mostly a snapshot.
LS - We should prepare 1 document with two chapters, 1 which is a summary and 1 which is an analysis and participants should complete their contribution to this document in the next 24 hours so it can be discussed at the next meeting of WP4
LS - other tract which is agreeing on the wording to be added to the Bylaws. The proposed text for discussion is: Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights laws and standards.
DM - Why standards?
NO - not my addition.
Niels ten Oever: The BC believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is comprehensive statement of human rights that is appropriate for ICANN14. The BC does not support having ICANN selectively commit to certain human rights while excluding others. Nor does the BC support having ICANN commit to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which was proposed by some sub-group members15. ICANN is not a business and would be a poor fit with the limited view of human rights originally developed by the UN for Businesses in the resource extraction industry.
MK - WSIS wrestled with this which was a very hard topic - the only agreement was UDHR. this would be sufficient and would probably generate consensus in our context.
TT - no cherry picking so need general language. finally opposed to mentionning UDHR but could live with it if a minority view.
LS there was an agreement not to mention any specific instruments.
GS - does not agree we should stay away from mentionning existing documents. 5 comments recommended UDHR.
General discussion on strategy forward
Discussion of poll for WP4
- Should there be a reference to specific document in the Bylaws text (human rights context) - (yes or no)?
- If a document is included should it be the UDHR (yes or no)?
- Another Document or documents? (list)
LS - Going forward - complete the document, reply to the Poll, continue the discussion of the document on the next call as well as the results of the poll.
Documents Presented
- Google doc: (HR language in ICANN's bylaws)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGYKB3d2pjx0iFGj8a8lywgM7WgYqTpis_4-ldkbtg8/edit
- Within its mission.pdf (wording to be added to the Bylaws)
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (10/6/2015 16:26) Welcome all to WP4 Meeting #6 on 6 October 2015 @ 22:00 UTC! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Niels ten Oever: (16:59) Hello everyone
ellen blackler: (16:59) hi
Markus Kummer: (16:59) Hi all
David McAuley: (17:00) phone issues here - trying to sort
Greg Shatan: (17:00) Hello all.
Niels ten Oever: (17:00) Very softly
Niels ten Oever: (17:01) Hearing now
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:01) Ola
Niels ten Oever: (17:01) Boa noite!
Niels ten Oever: (17:01) a bit loud
ellen blackler: (17:01) a little echo
Markus Kummer: (17:01) just fine
Tatiana Tropina: (17:01) Fine now
Niels ten Oever: (17:01) excellent for me
David McAuley: (17:02) Thanks Niels and Tatiana
kavouss arasteh: (17:03) Hi Every Body
Brenda Brewer: (17:03) we are calling you now Kavouss!
ellen blackler: (17:04) i have a few comments. ( it was excellent)
ellen blackler: (17:04) i put them inthe google doc but happy to gothru them here
Tatiana Tropina: (17:05) Ellen, your comments are very useful - I went through them briefly
Niels ten Oever: (17:05) Shall we work in Google Doc?
Niels ten Oever: (17:05) Yes
Tatiana Tropina: (17:05) yes we can
David McAuley: (17:05) I think we may have lost Leon
Brenda Brewer: (17:05) I hear Leon
Niels ten Oever: (17:05) Leon seems to be on mute, no?
Brenda Brewer: (17:06) He asked for you to please restate your request Ellen
David McAuley: (17:06) yes
David McAuley: (17:06) now
Niels ten Oever: (17:07) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGYKB3d2pjx0iFGj8a8lywgM7WgYqTpis_4-ldkbtg8/edit
Tatiana Tropina: (17:07) Excellent point!
Niels ten Oever: (17:07) Good with me
Tatiana Tropina: (17:09) Agree, Ellen.
Tatiana Tropina: (17:09) But Niels will explain it
Tatiana Tropina: (17:09) may be we can clarify it better
ellen blackler: (17:09) i understand
Tatiana Tropina: (17:10) or rephrase, so it will be clear
Markus Kummer: (17:11) Also my suggestion: can Niels and Tatiana walk us through the comments?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:12) Thanks to Niels and Tatiana for preparing this document for us!
Tatiana Tropina: (17:13) Guys we are woring on it right now online and correcting - join us if you want
Niels ten Oever: (17:13) agree - changed
Tatiana Tropina: (17:14) Thanks for the comment, Greg
Niels ten Oever: (17:14) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGYKB3d2pjx0iFGj8a8lywgM7WgYqTpis_4-ldkbtg8/edit#
Niels ten Oever: (17:14) Excellent point Greg, thanks
Niels ten Oever: (17:15) Happy to respond
Tatiana Tropina: (17:15) We referred to the "areas" of consensus
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:17) @neils - correct
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:17) Should remove the break downs of the 23
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:18) the 20 were the comments that generally supported the proposal without specifically referring to human rights
David McAuley: (17:19) I've stayed in chat
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:19) Correct
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:20) similarly for the 3 agaisnt
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:20) Looks good Greg
David McAuley: (17:23) yesr hard to hear Bernie
Tatiana Tropina: (17:23) Greg, this is a good idea.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (17:23) correct
Tatiana Tropina: (17:23) Let just everyone go through the comments and add anything they think is missing
Tatiana Tropina: (17:24) we tried to summarise everything because many comments refer to the same issues
Niels ten Oever: (17:26) we're first discussing the summary, not positions, right?
kavouss arasteh: (17:26) ICANN is not international protector of human right but to respect it
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:26) According to Article 29, ICANN doesn't respect privacy rights.
Tatiana Tropina: (17:27) I think this is very valuable comment and we probably will agree with this, but we didn't invent it - it came from public comments which we had to summarise :)
Tatiana Tropina: (17:27) May be we have to make a disclaimer?
kavouss arasteh: (17:27) Robinm,May you cut and paste that Article pls
Tatiana Tropina: (17:28) we are making this clarification right now in the doc
ellen blackler: (17:28) good idea leon
David McAuley: (17:28) ok, my mistake
Tatiana Tropina: (17:28) David, it's a good point because we certainly need this clarification to avoid confusion
Niels ten Oever: (17:28) No thanks, that was my point
David McAuley: (17:29) Thanks Tatiana
Niels ten Oever: (17:29) Yes
David McAuley: (17:29) yes
Tatiana Tropina: (17:29) we can!
David McAuley: (17:30) lost my phone - sorry will be in chat only, no battery
kavouss arasteh: (17:30) I am not convinced by the explanation given by Robin
Niels ten Oever: (17:31) This was not in the comments, right?
Tatiana Tropina: (17:31) We can may be start the new doc to reflect all the discussions and opinions?
Tatiana Tropina: (17:32) Or we can have this later from the transcript. Will be helpful for drafting the framework doc
kavouss arasteh: (17:32) We shall in no way claim that ICANN does b not respect article x or Y wizthout given all valid arugments
David McAuley: (17:32) If the case you mention is data retentio waivers, Robin, I imagine ICANN might see that differently since they give individual waivers, albeit not group waivers
Niels ten Oever: (17:33) lol re: DelBianco postulate
David McAuley: (17:33) I like the postulate as well, thank you Greg
kavouss arasteh: (17:33) Leon, this is a complex area that would be difficult to get in
kavouss arasteh: (17:33) I do not see any possibility that CCWG examine the case .
Niels ten Oever: (17:34) +1
Niels ten Oever: (17:34) Happy to work on next document. Once we agree on this
Tatiana Tropina: (17:34) Absolutely
Tatiana Tropina: (17:34) Greg, one good point after another :)
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (17:34) here is one letter Article 29 Working Party sent to ICANN in 2012 : http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-document/files/2012/20120926_letter_to_icann_en.pdf
David McAuley: (17:34) Niels, are you in the HR working party? If so could you enlighten us as to where that group is and whether we should coordinate
Niels ten Oever: (17:35) Happy to do so :)
David McAuley: (17:35) Thank you
kavouss arasteh: (17:35) According to Article 29, ICANN doesn't respect privacy rights (EU). is a matter to EU to prove or claims and not CCWGIf Article
Tatiana Tropina: (17:35) we were thinking about references but decided to go for summary
ellen blackler: (17:36) agree leon
Tatiana Tropina: (17:36) I think this doc is about public comments, assessment will be the next step.
David McAuley: (17:40) yes
David McAuley: (17:41) Good suggestion Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (17:42) Have another suggestion
Tatiana Tropina: (17:42) Raised my hand again
Tatiana Tropina: (17:44) Then we can work in parallel
Niels ten Oever: (17:44) +1
Niels ten Oever: (17:45) So we can do analysis in paralel in new doc
Niels ten Oever: (17:45) in which the discussions are also represented
Tatiana Tropina: (17:45) (1) create a new goodle doc for assessment (2) work on this summary/snapshot
Niels ten Oever: (17:45) +1
Tatiana Tropina: (17:45) well just copy paste the summary in the new doc so we can all comment and evaluate? Just an idea
David McAuley: (17:46) no phone Leon, are we to add assessments in this doc under that title?
David McAuley: (17:46) add "assessments" that is
Tatiana Tropina: (17:47) cool so we will have two docs, one summary, one with assessment
Leon Sanchez: (17:47) yes David, please
David McAuley: (17:47) thank you
Tatiana Tropina: (17:49) Leon, is this deadline only for assessment or for proposing the language and draftng the framework docs as well?
Tatiana Tropina: (17:49) Two docs I assume!
Tatiana Tropina: (17:49) So people can add thing to the summary as well?
David McAuley: (17:49) Sorry Greg - I may have added to the confusion on two vs one - will stay silent and see what is decided
Tatiana Tropina: (17:50) though.... If we are going to make this assessment it will be better to have everything in one doc :( it's gonna be a big mess then
Tatiana Tropina: (17:50) agree Leon. I am changing my opinion about two docs - we need only one.
David McAuley: (17:50) agree with that Leon
Tatiana Tropina: (17:51) Niels, +1
Tatiana Tropina: (17:51) I wonder how to separate clearly
Tatiana Tropina: (17:51) Because there has already been confusion concerning summary/analysis
Tatiana Tropina: (17:51) Good. Then intro to each chapter.
David McAuley: (17:53) The DB Postulate - could be a movie title
David McAuley: (17:53) thriller
Niels ten Oever: (17:54) Greg, you have a copy / example of this template
Greg Shatan: (17:54) I will circulate the draft that Steve prepared that I am thinking about.
Niels ten Oever: (17:54) Thanks!
David McAuley: (17:55) Sorry for no phone - Niels - are therte examples of HR standards that are not laws?
Greg Shatan: (17:56) Which Working Group is that?
Tatiana Tropina: (17:56) I don't think it was Niels
Niels ten Oever: (17:56) Le'ts remove the standards
Niels ten Oever: (17:57) It was not me suggesting the standards
David McAuley: (17:57) sorry - thought it was Niels
Leon Sanchez: (17:57) ok
Leon Sanchez: (17:57) I too thought it was Niels. My mistake. Sorry
Niels ten Oever: (17:57) np
Niels ten Oever: (17:57) let's remove standards
David McAuley: (17:58) Thanks Tatiana
David McAuley: (17:58) I agree on removal of standards
Niels ten Oever: (17:58) BC agreed with UDHR I think
Tatiana Tropina: (17:59) I am very much against adding the reference to specific documents I wonder how we proceed if we have this in public comments
Niels ten Oever: (17:59) The BC believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is comprehensive statement of human rights that is appropriate for ICANN14. The BC does not support having ICANN selectively commit to certain human rights while excluding others. Nor does the BC support having ICANN commit to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which was proposed by some sub-group members15. ICANN is not a business and would be a poor fit with the limited view of human rights originally developed by the UN for Businesses in the resource extraction industry.
ellen blackler: (18:00) i dont thinkthe BC meant to say it HAD to have a reference to the UDHR
Niels ten Oever: (18:00) yes
David McAuley: (18:00) yes we can
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:00) yes
ellen blackler: (18:00) ti was saying a reference was acceptable
Tatiana Tropina: (18:00) We have opposition in the group as well, so there is probably consensus (re Ruggie principles)
Niels ten Oever: (18:00) I also think that there are no comments that say that reference to UDHR is _neccessary_
Greg Shatan: (18:01) @Markus -- and now we are combining the two!
Tatiana Tropina: (18:01) I am very much against refereing to UDHR
Tatiana Tropina: (18:01) the simple broad language will be the best option
Niels ten Oever: (18:01) I also think we should not re-open the document selection discussion
Leon Sanchez: (18:03) I just want to make clear that I am not trying to re-open the discussion on document selection but only recognize that is something that was commented by some in the PCP
Niels ten Oever: (18:04) internationally recognized human rights law is even more high level and less contentious imho
Niels ten Oever: (18:04) UDHR was not requested as necessary by public comments
Tatiana Tropina: (18:04) I know - just really wondering what to do with UDHR because it was mentioned in the public comments!
Markus Kummer: (18:04) @Niels: agree, even more high level, but then it may be too high level for some, as it is open to interpretation
Tatiana Tropina: (18:05) but still we have to address this and explain why haven't we refer to this
Tatiana Tropina: (18:05) And let's delete standards :D
Greg Shatan: (18:08) I don't think we should quibble over the use of the word "appropriate" vs. "necessary"
Greg Shatan: (18:09) As far as I'm concerned, it's still an open question....
Greg Shatan: (18:09) I don't remember when we closed it.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:09) Greg, I agree - it should be solved in one way or another :)]
Tatiana Tropina: (18:10) I didn't mentioned the number of the pages ;)
Greg Shatan: (18:13) We can turn it into an app. Then it won't have pages at all.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:13) Interactive app. Why not.
Niels ten Oever: (18:13) But would it be android or ios?
Tatiana Tropina: (18:13) So anyone can fill the empty spaces with the flowers, etc
Greg Shatan: (18:13) Windows and Blackberry
Tatiana Tropina: (18:14) Niels, we have to go for both to avoid further divergencies
Niels ten Oever: (18:14) FLOSS or copyrighted ;)
Greg Shatan: (18:14) Copyleft
Niels ten Oever: (18:14) Let's do Symbian
Greg Shatan: (18:14) Palm Pilot!
Greg Shatan: (18:14) Newton....
Niels ten Oever: (18:14) SIM app!
Niels ten Oever: (18:14) Or integrate in baseband
Greg Shatan: (18:14) Talking Barbie.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:15) I see you will end with cave painting soon
Greg Shatan: (18:15) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-get-to-know-your-child.html?_r=0
Greg Shatan: (18:15) Picasso did, why shouldn't we.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:15) green tick if yes?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:16) Should the CCWG text on Human Rights refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not?
Greg Shatan: (18:16) Are we voting on the question or the answer?
ellen blackler: (18:16) can type q in the notes or the chat?
ellen blackler: (18:16) i see it
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:17) those could be two questions
Leon Sanchez: (18:17) We are voting on the question
Niels ten Oever: (18:17) Will the question be: should there be a reference to a specific document in the bylaw text?
Tatiana Tropina: (18:17) I can't hear anything
Niels ten Oever: (18:17) Or will the question be: Should we refer to the UDHR in the bylaw text?
Greg Shatan: (18:18) Should the Human RIghts bylaw refer to any specific Human RIghts document?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:18) Should the CCWG text on Human Rights refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not?
Brenda Brewer: (18:18) To Check tick either for or against, see last icon on menu bar on top (hand raised icon) Then select "Green/Agree" or "Red/Disagree"
Greg Shatan: (18:18) If yes, should that document be the UDHR?
Niels ten Oever: (18:18) Else we're conflating issues
Niels ten Oever: (18:18) +1 Greg
Greg Shatan: (18:18) I have proposed two questions.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:18) Ah I thought we are answering the question. Sorry.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:18) Greg +1
David McAuley: (18:18) I'm back online
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:19) Should there be a reference to specific document in the Bylaws text (human rights context)É
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:20) (yes or no)
Tatiana Tropina: (18:20) Wrong assumption
Tatiana Tropina: (18:20) yep :)
Niels ten Oever: (18:20) Or ICCPR, etc, etc, etc ;)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:20) If a document is included should be the UDHR (yes or no)
Tatiana Tropina: (18:20) great point actually
Tatiana Tropina: (18:20) I mean Greg's point
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:21) second
Greg Shatan: (18:22) Use my first question and Bernie's second question.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:22) Should there be a reference to specific document in the Bylaws text (human rights context) - yes or no
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:22) If a document is included should be the UDHR (yes or no)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:23) who are we pollingÉ
Tatiana Tropina: (18:23) Gret. I wanna have a choice even if I answer no. because if anything shall be included I would go for Universal D
Niels ten Oever: (18:23) There is a typo in there
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:23) ?
Greg Shatan: (18:23) 23:22 UTC
David McAuley: (18:23) it is now 23:23 UTC I think
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:23) will fix typos
Niels ten Oever: (18:23) oks
Greg Shatan: (18:23) Time marches on.
David McAuley: (18:23) woops off by a min
Markus Kummer: (18:25) Laws and principles would also work
Leon Sanchez: (18:25) Bernie we are polling WP4 participants
Tatiana Tropina: (18:25) Greg, this is international law :)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:26) go
David McAuley: (18:26) Leon may be on mute
Leon Sanchez: (18:26) yes Kavouss
Tatiana Tropina: (18:26) well alright there are several instruments that international law is represented by, and conventions are one of them. My understanding. I am lawyer but probably less sophisticated one, need more practice :D
David McAuley: (18:27) Broad terms like that, though, may it exceedingly hard on ICANN to know its duty
Niels ten Oever: (18:28) This is not completely my understanding
David McAuley: (18:28) yes Leon
Greg Shatan: (18:28) Most of my time is not spent in the field of international law. In any event, I'm always in learning mode. That's why they call it the "practice" of law. :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (18:28) If we have to complicate it to that extend I rather go for UDHR....
David McAuley: (18:29) That is why I like UDHR
Tatiana Tropina: (18:29) I changed my mind!
Greg Shatan: (18:29) That may take us down many twisty pathways.
Markus Kummer: (18:29) @Tatiana: that's why I suggested referring to the UDHR in the first place: short and sweet!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:29) who shall we poll
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:30) ?
Tatiana Tropina: (18:30) @Markus I am now getting there :D
Greg Shatan: (18:30) UDHR has the benefit of clarity....
Niels ten Oever: (18:30) @Bernard WP4 members, right?
Tatiana Tropina: (18:31) After 15 years of practicing law I rather go for simple things )
David McAuley: (18:31) OCCAM found his razor
Greg Shatan: (18:32) If Occam is in the CCWG, I would keep him away from sharp objects.
Tatiana Tropina: (18:32) David, I am still wondering which option has fewest assumptions
ellen blackler: (18:32) i have a stupid question...will i getthe poll in my email or i have to go find it?
David McAuley: (18:32) Again - many thanks to Niels and Tatiana for doing this document prior to tonight's call
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:32) can I have a closing time please
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:32) and day
Tatiana Tropina: (18:33) Can we have a clear summary again: steps 1,2,3
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:33) Oct7 23:59 UTC it is
Tatiana Tropina: (18:33) :) thanks!
Tatiana Tropina: (18:34) Yes
ellen blackler: (18:35) and the poll will be emailed to the lWP4 llist?
David McAuley: (18:35) Kavouss may be on mute
ellen blackler: (18:35) thanks!
Markus Kummer: (18:36) Thanks, good call. Bye all.
David McAuley: (18:36) Thanks all, and bye
Tatiana Tropina: (18:36) thanks!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (18:36) bye all
Greg Shatan: (18:36) Bye all!
ellen blackler: (18:36) thanks all!
Tatiana Tropina: (18:36) bye all
Niels ten Oever: (18:36) bye
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (18:36) thanks, Leon and all. bye!
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (18:36) Good night!