The issue paper is not the mandate.  That is merely a staff-prepared document intended to assist the subgroup in starting its work.

The mandate is in the Workstream 1 final report.  The issue is that Annex 6 (on Human Rights) and Annex 12 (on WS2) each lay out the mandate for the subgroup, but they are not the same and appear to conflict with each other.  This is expressed in more detail in Niels's email.

If we follow Annex 6, then each of the bullet point items needs to be dealt with by the subgroup separately from the FoI.  If we follow Annex 12, then we do not deal with them separately, but we do need to consider (or need to have considered) the bullet point items in preparing the FoI.

Greg

Greg

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again,

Looking at the attached document (which I expect is the mandate referred to by Niel), it seem to me that Annex 12 clearly enumerate that those listed bullet points needs to be considered as the FoI is being developed. 

I did not follow the work of the HR holistically but if we say we now have an FoI, it is assumed that the group considered and fulfilled the bullet point items, otherwise there isn't an FoI yet as it is expected that those considerations would inform the FoI drafting.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Jan 2017 17:57, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Niel, 

Thanks for your mail, just a question inline on one of your point. 

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Jan 2017 18:31, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear all,

Please refer to this version of the email instead.  The prior version
inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
.......
 In these discussions,  it felt as though  we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.

SO: Could you share reference to the mandate of the subgroup?

Thanks



5. A fifth  option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1
and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and
AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in  the Human
Rights Bylaw.  These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO
Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw
should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and
implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the
other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c)
chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps
needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of
the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate  the CCWG’s output in
their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by
ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human
resources, employment, and contracting practices  based on the Bylaw.

We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and
we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other
options.

The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and
we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2
with you all in 2017.

All the best,

The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup

PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to
correct it.
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community