Hi Tijani,
I think that the reference to "consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2" and the reference to the same process as in Work Stream one in the proposed bylaw language does, in fact, mean the approval of chartering organisations.
Furthermore, when we were agreeing on the HR bylaw language, the main idea was that the FOI will follow the same process as WS1, so the initial reference to CO's approval was supposed to serve this purpose. Thus, the new language, in my opinion, is fine, clear and fully in line with the intent of the report
Other than that, +1 to Greg and Niels for all the points.
Best regards
Tatiana

On 02/05/16 10:22, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Hi Niels,

The last modification of the bylaws proposed by the lawyers didn’t make any reference to the chartering organizations approval while it is clearly mentioned in the CCWG last proposal ratified by the chartering organizations.

Have a nice day

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
             +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> a écrit :

Dear Tijani and Kavouss,

Could you please indicate where the proposed text is not consistent with
the report? Concrete references would be helpful for me to better
understand your point.

Thanks in advance,

Niels



On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Tijani +1
I fully agree with Tijani
People misuse the opportunity to make modifications that were not agreed
during the lkast 16 months
NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
During the WSIS I WILL tell everybody that there is no supervision nor
control on what we have agreed and the people will make whatever change
they wish without the agreements of the others

KAVOUSS

2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn
<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>>:

   Mathieu and all,

   The modification proposed doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal
   approved by the chartering organization. I don’t think we are
   allowed to write bylaws that are not the exact interpretation of the
   approved document that had the CCWG consensus and the charting
   organizations ratification.

   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
   Executive Director
   Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
   Phone: +216 98 330 114
               +216 52 385 114
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
   <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> a écrit :

   Mathieu,
   Tks
   Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS to:
   1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING
   ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
   2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH YET TO BE
   DRAFTED.
   3. Making so many changes to the Third proposals . We must avoid
   having a new proposal
   Kavouss


   2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
   <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>:

       Dear colleagues, 

       Please find below for your consideration some suggestions from
       our lawyers for clarification of the bylaw language regarding
       the Human rights FoI. This follows our request during the
       previous call. 

       Best,

       Mathieu Weill
       ---------------
       Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

       Début du message transféré :

       *Expéditeur:* "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com
       <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>
       *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2
       *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
       <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'"
       <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe
       Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx
       <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org
       <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org
       <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>>
       *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org
       <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei"
       <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>,
       "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>"
       <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>,
       Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com
       <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>,
       "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org
       <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>"
       <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>
       *Objet:* *Human Rights Transition Provision:  Bylaws Section
       27.3(a)*


       Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws Coordinating Group: 

       On the CCWG call last week, there was a discussion of the
       Bylaws language regarding the transition provision on Human
       Rights*//*[27.3(a)] and it was suggested that the language be
       clarified to ensure that the same approval process used for
       Work Stream 1 would apply.  We propose the following
       clarifying edits.  We suggest that you share this with the
       CCWG and if there is agreement, the following proposed edit
       should be included in the CCWG’s public comment:____

       Redline:____

       *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*

       __ __

       (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
       have no force or effect unless and until a framework of
       interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is approved by
       (i) approved for submission to the Board by the
       CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work
       Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each of the
       CCWG-Accountability’s chartering organizations and (iii) the
       Board, (in each thecase of the Board, using the same process
       and criteria used by the Boardto consider the as for Work
       Stream 1 Recommendations).____

       __ __

       (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the
       reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the
       independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based
       solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in
       Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR contemplated
       by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
       or the Board that occurred prior to the____

       effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____

       Clean:____

       *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*

       __ __

       (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
       have no force or effect unless and until a framework of
       interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i) approved
       for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a
       consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 and (ii) approved
       by the Board, in each case, using the same process and
       criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations.____

       __ __

       (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the
       reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the
       independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based
       solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in
       Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR contemplated
       by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
       or the Board that occurred prior to the____

       effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____

       Kind regards, ____

       __ __

       Holly and Rosemary____

       __ __

       __ __

       *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
       Partner and Co-Chair
       Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group____

       *Sidley Austin LLP*
       787 Seventh Avenue
       New York, NY 10019
       +1 212 839 5853
       holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>
       www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>____

       http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
       <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____

       __ __




       ****************************************************************************************************
       This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information
       that is privileged or confidential.
       If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the
       e-mail and any attachments and notify us
       immediately.

       ****************************************************************************************************


       _______________________________________________
       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
   <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


-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
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
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