Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below : "...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.” OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below: "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried outonce an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*" Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly. I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following: "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)." We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected. I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations. If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval. Greg ______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail:
I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
Would that be a way forward?
Best, Thomas
Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Niels,
I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious:
1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations"
2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval.
3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package.
That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Hi Tijani,
But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern.
Best,
Niels
On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 > <mailto: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> >> <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> >>> <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> >>> <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> >>>> <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> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>>> <thomas@rickert.net >>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe >>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx >>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org >>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com >>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com >>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto: Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org >>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: holly.gregory@sidley.com> >>>> www.sidley.com >>>> <http://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> >>> <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> >>> <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 >> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > 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> > 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the *intent* behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following *intent* in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section. Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG. Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal. I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail:
I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
Would that be a way forward?
Best, Thomas
Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Niels,
I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious:
1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations"
2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval.
3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package.
That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Hi Tijani,
But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern.
Best,
Niels
On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 >> <mailto: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> >>> <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> >>>> <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> >>>> <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> >>>>> <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> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>>>> <thomas@rickert.net >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >>>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >>>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto: Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org >>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: holly.gregory@sidley.com> >>>>> www.sidley.com >>>>> <http://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> >>>> <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> >>>> <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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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> >> 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Approval of FOI by chartering organisation without granting any particular threshold is an absolute necessity. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 00:08, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the intent behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following intent in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section.
Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG.
Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that acceptance of the FOI-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this three times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a different process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote: Hi all, Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail:
I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
Would that be a way forward?
Best, Thomas
> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > > Hello Niels, > > I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious: > > 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations" > > 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval. > > 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package. > > That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote: >> Hi Tijani, >> >> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the >> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 >> >> <mailto: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> >> >>> <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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>>> <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> >> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >> >>>>> <thomas@rickert.net >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe >> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx >> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >> >>>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >> >>>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >> >>>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com >> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >> >>>>> www.sidley.com >> >>>>> <http://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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>> <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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Head of Digital >> >> >> >> Article 19 >> >> 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> >> >> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
If it is clear that "approval by chartering organizations" does not refer to any particular level of approval, then we are not so far apart. In other words, if the FOI got the same "approval" as the Proposal (approval by all but the GAC, non-objection by the GAC) that should be sufficient, and we just need to make sure the language states that with crystal clarity. The real problem arises where participants contend that approval of all Chartering Organizations is required [uniquely] for the FOI. Greg On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Approval of FOI by chartering organisation without granting any particular threshold is an absolute necessity. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 00:08, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the *intent* behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following *intent* in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section.
Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG.
Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail:
I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
Would that be a way forward?
Best, Thomas
Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Niels,
I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious:
1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations"
2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval.
3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package.
That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
> Hi Tijani, > > But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the > CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 > >> <mailto: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> > >>> <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> > >>>> <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> > >>>> <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> > >>>>> <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> > >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" > >>>>> <thomas@rickert.net > >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, > León Felipe > >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx > >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, " > bylaws-coord@icann.org > >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> > >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" < > bylaws-coord@icann.org > >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> > >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> > >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org > >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" > >>>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com > >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, > >>>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com > >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" > >>>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com > >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com > >>, > >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com > >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> > >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, > >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto: > Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> > >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" > >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org > >>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: > holly.gregory@sidley.com> > >>>>> www.sidley.com > >>>>> <http://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> > >>>> <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> > >>>> <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 > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> 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> > >> > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Sir, Why GAC is / should be excluded? I totally disagree with Dutch discriminatory measures that you proposed. I knew from the very beginning that some people???intentionally wanted to exclude GAC to pronounce / express its views on FOI-HR like other chartering organisations This is unfounded, discriminator I disagree with that. Regards Kavousd . Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 17:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
If it is clear that "approval by chartering organizations" does not refer to any particular level of approval, then we are not so far apart. In other words, if the FOI got the same "approval" as the Proposal (approval by all but the GAC, non-objection by the GAC) that should be sufficient, and we just need to make sure the language states that with crystal clarity. The real problem arises where participants contend that approval of all Chartering Organizations is required [uniquely] for the FOI.
Greg
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, Approval of FOI by chartering organisation without granting any particular threshold is an absolute necessity. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 00:08, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the intent behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following intent in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section.
Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG.
Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that acceptance of the FOI-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this three times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a different process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter. > > If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter). > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote: >> Hi all, >> Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail: >> >> I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“. >> >> Would that be a way forward? >> >> Best, >> Thomas >> >> >> >>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hello Niels, >>> >>> I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious: >>> >>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations" >>> >>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval. >>> >>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package. >>> >>> That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote: >>>> Hi Tijani, >>>> >>>> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the >>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 >>>> >> <mailto: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> >>>> >>> <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> >>>> >>>> <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> >>>> >>>> <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> >>>> >>>>> <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> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>>> >>>>> <thomas@rickert.net >>>> >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe >>>> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx >>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org >>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >>>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org >>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >>>> >>>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com >>>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>> >>>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >>>> >>>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com >>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com >>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >>>> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >>>> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org >>>> >>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >>>> >>>>> www.sidley.com >>>> >>>>> <http://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> >>>> >>>> <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> >>>> >>>> <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 >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>> >> Head of Digital >>>> >> >>>> >> Article 19 >>>> >> 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> >>>> >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 did not suggest that GAC should be excluded. I merely used the "approval" that the CCWG Proposal received as an example, asking whether something like that would be sufficient or insufficient to allow the FOI to be sent to the Board. It could just as easily be the ASO that gives a "non-objection" rather than an "approval," "ratification," or "support" (different COs used different terms to indicate approval of the CCWG Proposal. Greg On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir, Why GAC is / should be excluded? I totally disagree with Dutch discriminatory measures that you proposed. I knew from the very beginning that some people???intentionally wanted to exclude GAC to pronounce / express its views on FOI-HR like other chartering organisations This is unfounded, discriminator I disagree with that. Regards Kavousd .
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 17:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
If it is clear that "approval by chartering organizations" does not refer to any particular level of approval, then we are not so far apart. In other words, if the FOI got the same "approval" as the Proposal (approval by all but the GAC, non-objection by the GAC) that should be sufficient, and we just need to make sure the language states that with crystal clarity. The real problem arises where participants contend that approval of all Chartering Organizations is required [uniquely] for the FOI.
Greg
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Approval of FOI by chartering organisation without granting any particular threshold is an absolute necessity. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 00:08, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the *intent* behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following *intent* in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section.
Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG.
Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
> Hi all, > Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail: > > I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the > chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the > reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as > defined in the CCWG charter“. > > Would that be a way forward? > > Best, > Thomas > > > > Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > >: > > Hello Niels, > > I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely > you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even > though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must > say is obvious: > > 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of > chartering organisations" > > 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval > within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of > number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval. > > 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What > I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be > developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 > proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package. > > That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was > written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree > that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the > bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that > the report did not say approval of CO is required. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Tijani, >> >> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the >> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 >> >> <mailto: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> >> >>> <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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>>> <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> >> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >> >>>>> <thomas@rickert.net >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, >> León Felipe >> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx >> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, " >> bylaws-coord@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" < >> bylaws-coord@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >> >>>>> <rfei@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >> >>>>> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >" >> >>>>> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com >> >>, >> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com >> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto: >> Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org >> >>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: >> holly.gregory@sidley.com> >> >>>>> www.sidley.com >> >>>>> <http://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> >> >>>> <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> >> >>>> <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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Head of Digital >> >> >> >> Article 19 >> >> 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> >> >> >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ 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
Greg, I made the following proposal: I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“. Would it be acceptable for you? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 3 mai 2016 à 16:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> a écrit :
If it is clear that "approval by chartering organizations" does not refer to any particular level of approval, then we are not so far apart. In other words, if the FOI got the same "approval" as the Proposal (approval by all but the GAC, non-objection by the GAC) that should be sufficient, and we just need to make sure the language states that with crystal clarity. The real problem arises where participants contend that approval of all Chartering Organizations is required [uniquely] for the FOI.
Greg
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, Approval of FOI by chartering organisation without granting any particular threshold is an absolute necessity. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 00:08, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the intent behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following intent in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section.
Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG.
Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below :
"...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
"Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following:
"The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that acceptance of the FOI-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
We said ... er sorry .. wrote this three times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a different process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
Greg
______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
At no point did we say that there would be a special process for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
Greg
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Thomas,
If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter.
If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Hi all, Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail:
I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
Would that be a way forward?
Best, Thomas
Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
Hello Niels,
I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is obvious:
1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of chartering organisations"
2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval.
3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package.
That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that the report did not say approval of CO is required.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote: Hi Tijani,
But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern.
Best,
Niels
On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, 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 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto: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> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > <mailto: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> > <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> > <mailto: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> >> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> >> <mailto: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> >> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> >> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe >> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> >> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>>> >> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> >> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >> <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> >> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>>, >> "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> >> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>" >> <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> >> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>>, >> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> >> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>>, >> "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> >> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>" >> <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853> >> holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> >> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> >> <http://www.sidley.com/ <http://www.sidley.com/>> <http://www.sidley.com/ <http://www.sidley.com/>>____ >> >> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png <http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png> >> <http://www.sidley.com/ <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> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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>
-- 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 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> 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>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA