Hi, I had understood that much of the opposition expressed by those supporting B had to do with the fear of legal action. Since that fear seems not to be fact based, I was thinking some of that opposition has been answered. There is also the fact that with the departure of NTIA we have no backstop for the human rights obligations of the open internet without declaring a corporate commitment to human rights. This is not one of those nice to have Accountability changes made while there is a chance. This is a direct necessity based on losing the governmental backstop, given their obligation for human rights (whatever we think of their implementation of their governmental responsibilities). avri On 16-Jan-16 15:59, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Some facts:
* it wasn’t only the board who expressed concerns: some other comments did * on the call, there were different views expressed: some were for option A, others for option B and most for option C * Option C is a compromise between A and B
Other facts:
* the issue of Human rights was raised at the beginning of our works, and the position of the CCWG members was « since ICANN is about names and numbers, and has nothing to do with the content, no need to address this issue ». * It was raised again I think in Paris meeting, and the decision was to address it in work stream 2. and under the insistence of some, the CCWG decided to have a very high level mention on the issue in the proposal of Work Stream 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 16 janv. 2016 à 20:04, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> a écrit :
Agree with this. In addition to the Board's comments being the focus for the rec discussions (at least it appears that way to me) it seems like unless a comment is raised during the Adobe it is considered resolved. Not all commenters participate in the Adobe chats, but that should not mean their comments should be dismissed or downplayed.
__________
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/>
On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org><mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Was also noticing how little time we spend stepping through all the comments and answering them. Was wondering how we were coming to consensus before having done so.
Don't wee need to have a response for all the comments on this draft? Given that we are using the process we are using, perhaps for each recommendation we are approaching consensus on we should check against the comments to see what we may be missing. Each recommendation as it nears completion could be taken by a few volunteers and checked against the comments on that recommendation. These small teams could take responsibility for drafting the responses as well.
I do not dispute the importance of coming to agreement with the Board, but we must also deal with the rest of the comments in an proper manner. Especially on areas where finding an agreement point with the Board is challenging, the comments of the community can give us direction and an sasist.
avri
On 15-Jan-16 18:50, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree and am concerned about the degree of automatic deference and preference for board desired outcomes over CCWG - Accountability participants and public comments in the organization of these discussions. For some reason, these discussions seem to each focus on the board objectives and comments and almost no attention to the comments of any other stakeholder. Let’s not forget many members of the public filed comments last month, expecting them to be discussed and incorporated. But it looks like the only concerns placed before us for consideration are the board comments/objectives. Let’s not forget the others!
Best, Robin
On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net><mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
Dear co-chairs (an all),
I am quite surprised by your proposal to invite members and board to consider option C since WP4 and CCWG achieved consensus on option A, which was reinforced by the independent lawyers advice. I really don't think this work should be disregarded.
The ICANN lawyers did not provide examples, case-law or other documents to outline any risk. So even though I am very willing to discuss, I see no reason to only consider option C and I am very surprised that you as co-chairs argue for that option even though consensus was reached earlier on option A. As I said in my previous email, it is not reasonable to consider option C before we agree that we won't proceed with the option A.
All the best,
Niels
On 01/15/2016 05:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
_Sent on behalf of CoChairs _ _ _ Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #76. The updated document is attached.
1.Agreement to rely on target dates instead of hard deadlines, in line with general approach agreed for WS2 2. Discussed comments (including Icann Board, RrSG…) requesting that the inclusion of human rights language into the bylaws be delayed until the proposed framework of interpretation was completed or even only be considered in Work Stream 2.
a.Independent lawyer input has been provided and concludes : While the addition of the proposed human rights bylaw provision should not increase the exposure of ICANN to legal liability, we recognize that special interest groups and individuals might seek to bring non-meritorious claims, but the risk of meritless claims is already a risk that ICANN faces. b. Board clarified that concern included risk that IRP would interpret the Bylaw language and create “case law policy” while the FoI is finalized. c. Consider Lawyer input suggestion as follows :
i. “ /expressly limiting the jurisdiction of any internal dispute resolution systems within ICANN (such as the IRP) to preclude claims of human rights violations that are not grounded in a specific violation of an applicable law”./
3. Members and Board are invited to consider whether option c) could be an acceptable way forward
a. Confirm recommendation bylaw language as part of WS1, despite concerns expressed b. Defer bylaw language adoption to WS2, when FoI is finalized
c. Adopt adjusted bylaw language as part of WS1 to clarify that it can only be enforced or used in an IRP once the FoI is approved (Such as : “This articles becomes effective 30 days after approval of the FoI…”).
Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 19 January.
Best regards
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps...>
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/><http://www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/>>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps...>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus%3Chttps://www.avast.com/antivirus%3E>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus