Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of the FOI
- HR.
Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and the availability
of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted
below).
One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community Reconsideration Request, mediation
or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be
conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be involved in this analysis.
So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically will have
adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”):
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf
|
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese |
|
Of Counsel |
|
520.629.4428 office |
|
520.879.4725 fax |
|
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 |
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 |
From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM
To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com; seun.ojedeji@gmail.com
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
[Part of string deleted to make shorter]
This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion
of the unified subgroup document.
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:
The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts
[i.e., the considerations document] to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations
to accompany the FOI [someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations].
As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization
[i.e., staff] to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization.
[It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.] The Board encourages the CCWG
[i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist
[the staff] with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community
[i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals] in their deliberations of the final recommendations.
In other words:
-
The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document.
-
The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI
-
Staff is developing these implementation recommendations.
-
As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment.
-
CCWG (really, this subgroup) needs to create
examples of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact.
-
CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff,
-
Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment.
-
CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community.
-
Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations.
-
Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations.
Does that make sense?
(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate
evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”),
within the scope of each Work Stream." (emphasis added))
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc@gmail.com