Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Hello Niel, Thanks for your mail, just a question inline on one of your point. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 18:31, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote: Dear all, Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report. ....... In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. SO: Could you share reference to the mandate of the subgroup? Thanks 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Hello again, Looking at the attached document (which I expect is the mandate referred to by Niel), it seem to me that Annex 12 clearly enumerate that those listed bullet points needs to be considered as the FoI is being developed. I did not follow the work of the HR holistically but if we say we now have an FoI, it is assumed that the group considered and fulfilled the bullet point items, otherwise there isn't an FoI yet as it is expected that those considerations would inform the FoI drafting. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Jan 2017 17:57, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Niel,
Thanks for your mail, just a question inline on one of your point.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 18:31, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
.......
In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
SO: Could you share reference to the mandate of the subgroup?
Thanks
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
The issue paper is not the mandate. That is merely a staff-prepared document intended to assist the subgroup in starting its work. The mandate is in the Workstream 1 final report. The issue is that Annex 6 (on Human Rights) and Annex 12 (on WS2) each lay out the mandate for the subgroup, but they are not the same and appear to conflict with each other. This is expressed in more detail in Niels's email. If we follow Annex 6, then each of the bullet point items needs to be dealt with by the subgroup separately from the FoI. If we follow Annex 12, then we do not deal with them separately, but we do need to consider (or need to have considered) the bullet point items in preparing the FoI. Greg Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again,
Looking at the attached document (which I expect is the mandate referred to by Niel), it seem to me that Annex 12 clearly enumerate that those listed bullet points needs to be considered as the FoI is being developed.
I did not follow the work of the HR holistically but if we say we now have an FoI, it is assumed that the group considered and fulfilled the bullet point items, otherwise there isn't an FoI yet as it is expected that those considerations would inform the FoI drafting.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 8 Jan 2017 17:57, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Niel,
Thanks for your mail, just a question inline on one of your point.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 18:31, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
.......
In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
SO: Could you share reference to the mandate of the subgroup?
Thanks
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Greg,
From the section of Annex 6, only one item states a need to develop a document (which is the FoI), others started with the word "consider" which simply means that it's expected to carried out in respect to another action which is the development of the FoI.
Whether we treat it individually or collectively isn't important, what seem to be most important is that the items are considered in development of the FoI. - As I understand it, no other implementation document is expected to be produced under Human rights except the FoI. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Jan 2017 04:26, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue paper is not the mandate. That is merely a staff-prepared document intended to assist the subgroup in starting its work.
The mandate is in the Workstream 1 final report. The issue is that Annex 6 (on Human Rights) and Annex 12 (on WS2) each lay out the mandate for the subgroup, but they are not the same and appear to conflict with each other. This is expressed in more detail in Niels's email.
If we follow Annex 6, then each of the bullet point items needs to be dealt with by the subgroup separately from the FoI. If we follow Annex 12, then we do not deal with them separately, but we do need to consider (or need to have considered) the bullet point items in preparing the FoI.
Greg
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again,
Looking at the attached document (which I expect is the mandate referred to by Niel), it seem to me that Annex 12 clearly enumerate that those listed bullet points needs to be considered as the FoI is being developed.
I did not follow the work of the HR holistically but if we say we now have an FoI, it is assumed that the group considered and fulfilled the bullet point items, otherwise there isn't an FoI yet as it is expected that those considerations would inform the FoI drafting.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 8 Jan 2017 17:57, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Niel,
Thanks for your mail, just a question inline on one of your point.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 18:31, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
.......
In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
SO: Could you share reference to the mandate of the subgroup?
Thanks
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Greg Shatan -
Seun Ojedeji