A few quick and non-excessive comments: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Mathieu, All,
Leaving aside any discussion on the principle of putting this in as a by-law, the draft text (which I understand to be actual proposed by-law text)
I'm (still) unclear on what might be meant by "actual proposed by-law text". Have our counsel approved this as usable text, or will this be subject to further drafting by counsel?
below seems to me to be deficient.
This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until a Framework of Interpretation is developed as part of “Work Stream 2” by the CCWG-Accountability or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees. ICANN shall support the establishment and work of such a Group to facilitate development of the Framework of Interpretation as promptly as possible.
Any such framework needs to the approved not just developed.
Agree, but this is merely a drafting point. We should also clarify who the approver(s) is/are. Is it the Chartering Organizations or is it the Board
It would not be sufficient for such a development to occur in a group chartered by one or more of the SOs and ACs. Such a group would need to be chartered in the same way as the they CCWG.
This should be a broadly chartered WG. A single SO or AC would not be sufficient. That said, it should not be a requirement that all of the CCWG chartering organizations have to charter this group too. (And of course there is always the option of continuing the work in the CCWG/WS2.)
In other words, precisely the same ‘rules’ for other WS2 matters would need to apply to this. Is that correct?
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
*Important Notice* *- *This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 27 Jan 2016, at 08:06 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Thank you Bruce,
For the benefit of the Board members as well as colleagues who did not attend the call, a short summary from our conclusions today based on the meeting notes. This conclusion was achieved after closely listening to the Board's concerns raised in the 3rd public comment, and assessing various alternate proposals during our 3 plenary working sessions.
Action item is now for staff and lawyers to move to finalizing recommendation consistent with the proposal discussed and comments expressed during the session -(such as Alan). No further plenary discussion is planned unless, as suggested by Kavouss, the Board would come back with a concrete action or resolution that would convince the group to proceed otherwise.
And the proposed text during the session was : <quote>Within its Mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized Human Rights. This commitment shall not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce Human Rights beyond what may be required by applicable law. In particular, this does not create any additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request, or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN. This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until a Framework of Interpretation is developed as part of “Work Stream 2” by the CCWG-Accountability or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees. ICANN shall support the establishment and work of such a Group to facilitate development of the Framework of Interpretation as promptly as possible.</>
Best regards, Mathieu
-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Bruce Tonkin Envoyé : mardi 26 janvier 2016 21:17 À : CCWG Accountability Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board comments on Recommendation 6 Importance : Haute
Hello All,
Markus gave a verbal summary of the current position of the Board following our Board call yesterday during the CCWG call. I have set out the current position in writing below.
I recognize that the CCWG members did not accept the Board's position. There are quite a few Board members on the call - and we can take this discussion back to the Board to see if we can find another solution.
(1) The Board is committed to upholding human rights as appropriate within ICANN's mission; and
(2) The Board intends to work alongside the community to progress the human rights work within ICANN, including through the development of a Human Rights Statement to reach a meaningful framework to guide human rights considerations within ICANN's mission.
The Board still remains supportive of Option B, or allowing the WS2 effort on defining a framework to proceed prior to considering whether to include a human rights obligation in the Bylaws.
The Board understands that one of the reasons for the suggestion of a "dormant" bylaw text (which the Board remains concerned about for the reasons flagged earlier) is that there is concern among the community that if a reference to human rights is not included in the Bylaws, the Board will not follow through on a community wish to address this issue. To address this concern, the Board proposes that including in the Bylaws a requirement for ICANN to address the human rights issue, as well as a requirement to consider - after a framework is concluded - how that should be referenced in the Bylaws. The Board therefore proposes the following:
In the Bylaws text referencing WS2, language should be included that specifically identifies that a recommended framework on human rights within ICANN is expected to be part of the WS2 effort. Further, the Bylaws on WS2 should specify that If the cross-community group developing the framework also makes a consensus recommendation on whether and how that framework can be reflected in the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board must consider that recommendation according to the process defined for considering those continuous improvement recommendations.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community