so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs, Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even. Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one? I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not. Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks. 80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows? Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights. Dear esteemed chairs, Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even. Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one? I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not. Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do. If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help. Cheers, Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Keith On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: All, Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do. If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help. Cheers, Chris On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote: Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks. 80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows? Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights. Dear esteemed chairs, Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even. Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one? I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not. Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Chris My proposal which mentioned that the recognition of human rights in the Bylaws is fundamental . However,due to the fact that it is a sensitive and delicate issue , the exact text/ language to adequately address / cover the case needs to be carefully examined and agreed upon within the tasks and activities to be carried out under WS2 Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:44, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
+1. The UN Declaration is the recognized bedrock, really. However, the convenants are where things get specific. Requires further work, which fortunately is already started in the Human Rights community working party. As for ICANN taking tangible action...may I humbly suggest that dropping the public meeting of the Board and the NCSG would go a long way to compliance with Article 5... (that is the one on torture, to save you looking it up....http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 18:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
LOL! Cheers, Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 09:13 , Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
+1. The UN Declaration is the recognized bedrock, really. However, the convenants are where things get specific. Requires further work, which fortunately is already started in the Human Rights community working party. As for ICANN taking tangible action...may I humbly suggest that dropping the public meeting of the Board and the NCSG would go a long way to compliance with Article 5... (that is the one on torture, to save you looking it up....http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>) Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 18:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
I"m glad. I think we could all use a chuckle. SP On 2015-07-30 19:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
LOL!
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 09:13 , Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
+1. The UN Declaration is the recognized bedrock, really. However, the convenants are where things get specific. Requires further work, which fortunately is already started in the Human Rights community working party. As for ICANN taking tangible action...may I humbly suggest that dropping the public meeting of the Board and the NCSG would go a long way to compliance with Article 5... (that is the one on torture, to save you looking it up....http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 18:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 |jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>| Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
I'm been resisting using that self same wisecrack about the public forum for quite some time, since it's makes light of such a serious matter. But I laughed out loud at it despite that. Sent from my iPad
On 31 Jul 2015, at 00:15, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
LOL!
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 09:13 , Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
+1. The UN Declaration is the recognized bedrock, really. However, the convenants are where things get specific. Requires further work, which fortunately is already started in the Human Rights community working party. As for ICANN taking tangible action...may I humbly suggest that dropping the public meeting of the Board and the NCSG would go a long way to compliance with Article 5... (that is the one on torture, to save you looking it up....http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-30 18:44, Chris Disspain wrote: All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Chris, I couldn't agree more. However, we need to look at what doing the work now would entail and how that would fit into our timeline and deliverables, to see if it is "do-able." Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, I would argue the human rights and especially openness and the freedom of information and the free flow of information are far more important that any timetable especially considering that the contract can be renewed for up to 4 more years. avri On 31-Jul-15 07:36, Greg Shatan wrote:
Chris,
I couldn't agree more. However, we need to look at what doing the work now would entail and how that would fit into our timeline and deliverables, to see if it is "do-able."
Greg
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 <tel:202-331-2130%20X%20101> | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
Hi, I believe that if we are not yet ready to put this in WS1, we need to keep working on it until we are. I believe going to WS1 without a bylaw committing ICANN to respecting human rights, given the loss of NTIA oversight is a mistake and fails in meeting our requirements and is thus unacceptable. As corporation ICANN has no obligations vis a vis human rights except for those defined in its bylaws of by its oversight. A vague article comitting to applicable International laws and covenants is not sufficient.We have a requirements for openness and the respect for freedom of expression and the free flow of information and nothing in our articles of bylaws that commits ICANN to that. If you need explicit guideline those can be found in the UN document: * * Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.p...> <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>* avri On 31-Jul-15 00:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
As I look at the record, I see two consecutive meetings where participants voted to include language concerning human rights in the bylaws. It may just be my lack of intellectual capacity, but why are we still talking about whether we are ready to include the language in the bylaws? I thought that decision was made. The only question is what specific language belongs there, given at single meetings multiple versions were approved. Seriously, a 16-4 vote? That's not even close. The cynic in me suggests that if the vote had gone the other way we still would not be discussing the issue. Personally I look forward to receiving public comments on all of this. Confused. ---------------------------------------- From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 6:43 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights. Hi, I believe that if we are not yet ready to put this in WS1, we need to keep working on it until we are. I believe going to WS1 without a bylaw committing ICANN to respecting human rights, given the loss of NTIA oversight is a mistake and fails in meeting our requirements and is thus unacceptable. As corporation ICANN has no obligations vis a vis human rights except for those defined in its bylaws of by its oversight. A vague article comitting to applicable International laws and covenants is not sufficient.We have a requirements for openness and the respect for freedom of expression and the free flow of information and nothing in our articles of bylaws that commits ICANN to that. If you need explicit guideline those can be found in the UN document: * * Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.p...> <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>* avri On 31-Jul-15 00:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I'm happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear co-chairs, I would like to express a general concern about our working methods: 1. I do think that the work undertaken by the CCWG is too important and will impact the future of ICANN and the Internet governance in general. I do not think that under any circumstance, we should run after a deadline even if it is imposed by a strong and valid reason because the result may not meet the interest of ICANN as organization and its community as a whole. I believe that our work should not be only done; it must be well done. During our work, we were pushed to work under very tight time, with several conference calls a day (we did 12 hours calls in 24 hours, divided in 3 parts). The number of text proposal was so huge that it was impossible to review and comment on them for a good participation; as a result, they do not reflect the exact opinion of all members of the group. This makes me wonder who may really participate and impact the decisions in the group. Anyone who has another life than the CCWG one would definitely not be able to actively participle and follow all the language drafted. So, if you are not paid to do this work (by your government or by your company), you will never manage to have an efficient participation. Since we were asked by the NTIA to evaluate the time required to finish our work, I was of the view that we have to take the necessary time for a well debated and agreed result. This doesn't mean the work done is not good: I would like here to thank very much the 2 raporteurs Jordan and Beky for their hard work and time and also the 3 co-Chairs for their continuous efforts for consensus building, but some parts need more discussion and more clarity that couldn't be reached because of the time constraint. Finally, I do prefer stay with the NTIA stewardship rather than transit it to the community without robust, clear, fair and workable accountability mechanisms accepted by all the community components. 2. As per our charter, only CCWG members participate in the decision making process. Also, the decisions should be taken by consensus. I noticed that when it was necessary to make a straw poll to get the temperature of the group about an issue where there was no full consensus, it was done with the participation of the whole people participating in the call, which doesn't reflect the temperature of the members allowed to participate in the decision making. This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. http://www.avast.com
Certainly a +1 from me as I earlier raised as well. Regards On 30 Jul 2015 11:44 pm, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Chris, You know it when you see it :-)-O el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 31, 2015, at 07:12, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Certainly a +1 from me as I earlier raised as well.
Regards
On 30 Jul 2015 11:44 pm, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: All,
Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do.
If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help.
Cheers,
Chris
On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with Chris. I asked several times that examples be given so that we avoid any kind of misunderstanding. In fact, I object to put anything in bylaws in WS1 if explicit explanation of our wording is not provided with clear examples. By the way, I proposed in yesterday calls more than once kind of language to be added to avoid any abusive use of this in practical. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Chris Disspain Envoyé : jeudi 30 juillet 2015 23:44 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights. All, Irrespective of whether this ends up in WS 1 or 2 we really do need to do the work to define what we mean by the words we use. What are fundamental human rights? Whose definition are we using? And it would be really useful to have some examples of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment or something it would not be able to do. If we are not prepared or equipped to do that work now then this MUST go to WS 2 IMO. If we are prepared to do the work now I’m happy to help. Cheers, Chris On 31 Jul 2015, at 08:37 , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote: Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks. 80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows? Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights. Dear esteemed chairs, Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even. Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one? I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not. Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc? Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. http://www.avast.com
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.
Dear esteemed chairs,
Perhaps it was because I was following only the chat, but I cannot tell where the issue was left. I am sorry I could not stay on the call, but I had a classroom of students I was guiding through a multistakeholder practicum. i.e I was working, for pay even.
Does the reference recommendation currently include a bylaw on Human Rights? If so, which one?
I am trying to decide on whether I need to spend tonight finishing my minority report or not.
Also Is the deadline for the minority reports that want to be include in the report still Friday at 1800 utc?
Thanks
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
On 30/07/2015 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority
I don't think we do. I think we have identified that no proposal had a consensus, which is what our charter enjoins us to seek. Our charter describes a Consensus as " a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree" Nothing in our charter asks us to look for a majority. Indeed, our charter specifically warns us "In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results." That warning seems to preclude poking through the bones of those polls in an effort to divine which has "a more clear majority". -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
No, we don't. In terms of the Charter need to determine whether we have Full Consensus, Consensus or enough objections to constitut No Consensus of the members appointed by the chartering AC/SOs. The participants do not take part in this determination and/or any related polls. Qualifying language has the restrictive effect of excluding what is not mentioned. Hence I will only accept an unqualified requirement. This can go into WS2 but we then loose leverage. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 30, 2015, at 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck
[...]
Hi, Not only would we lose leverage, but until such time as WS2 completed its work there would be no protection of human rights and especially no protection for freedom of expression and the free flow of knowledge. avri On 31-Jul-15 07:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
No,
we don't.
In terms of the Charter need to determine whether we have Full Consensus, Consensus or enough objections to constitut No Consensus of the members appointed by the chartering AC/SOs.
The participants do not take part in this determination and/or any related polls.
Qualifying language has the restrictive effect of excluding what is not mentioned. Hence I will only accept an unqualified requirement.
This can go into WS2 but we then loose leverage.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 30, 2015, at 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri, you are right. As a matter of fact, while thinking about this in the car this morning, I have decided to chang my mind: 1) It must go into WS1 2) I can live with Keith's language if a) we add the words "in particular", "such as for example" or my personal favourite "inter alia"; AND b) add the words "due process" I only have the iPhone in my meeting but will propose a complete sentence later in the morning. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 31, 2015, at 07:04, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Not only would we lose leverage, but until such time as WS2 completed its work there would be no protection of human rights and especially no protection for freedom of expression and the free flow of knowledge.
avri
On 31-Jul-15 07:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: No,
we don't.
In terms of the Charter need to determine whether we have Full Consensus, Consensus or enough objections to constitut No Consensus of the members appointed by the chartering AC/SOs.
The participants do not take part in this determination and/or any related polls.
Qualifying language has the restrictive effect of excluding what is not mentioned. Hence I will only accept an unqualified requirement.
This can go into WS2 but we then loose leverage.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 30, 2015, at 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I can also live with this with one addition: - continuing work in WS2 of the modalties of how ICANN integrates respect, impact analyses, and rights redress into its processes. thanks avri On 31-Jul-15 08:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
you are right.
As a matter of fact, while thinking about this in the car this morning, I have decided to chang my mind:
1) It must go into WS1
2) I can live with Keith's language if
a) we add the words "in particular", "such as for example" or my personal favourite "inter alia"; AND
b) add the words "due process"
I only have the iPhone in my meeting but will propose a complete sentence later in the morning.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 31, 2015, at 07:04, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Not only would we lose leverage, but until such time as WS2 completed its work there would be no protection of human rights and especially no protection for freedom of expression and the free flow of knowledge.
avri
On 31-Jul-15 07:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
No,
we don't.
In terms of the Charter need to determine whether we have Full Consensus, Consensus or enough objections to constitut No Consensus of the members appointed by the chartering AC/SOs.
The participants do not take part in this determination and/or any related polls.
Qualifying language has the restrictive effect of excluding what is not mentioned. Hence I will only accept an unqualified requirement.
This can go into WS2 but we then loose leverage.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 30, 2015, at 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for Keith, s proposal) Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for Grec, s proposal) My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org> <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture more folks.
80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
Jonathan Zuck
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (13)
-
Avri Doria -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephanie Perrin -
Tijani BEN JEMAA