[Part of string deleted to make shorter] This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document. Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying: The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts [i.e., the considerations document] to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI [someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]. As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization [i.e., staff] to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. [It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.] The Board encourages the CCWG [i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist [the staff] with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community [i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals] in their deliberations of the final recommendations. In other words: * The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. * The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI * Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. * As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. * CCWG (really, this subgroup) needs to create examples of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. * CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, * Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. * CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community. * Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. * Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations. Does that make sense? (With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), within the scope of each Work Stream." (emphasis added)) Greg * Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>

Paul, Advice of counsel. 😁😨😱😵👹 *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Matthew Shears <matthew@intpolicy.com> wrote:

Agree as well - thanks Greg.

On 13/04/2017 22:19, McAuley, David via Accountability-Cross-Community wrote:

[Part of string deleted to make shorter]

This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com> <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:

The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]*.

As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their deliberations of the final recommendations.

In other words:

- The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations.

- As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment.

- CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff,

- Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment.

- CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community.

- Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations.

- Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations.

Does that make sense?

(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each Work Stream*." (emphasis added))

Greg

-

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> <#m_1560462168413596224_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Matthew Shearsmatthew@intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of the FOI - HR. Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and the availability of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below). One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be involved in this analysis. So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically will have adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/HR... [cid:image003.png@01D2B466.72809920] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D2B46E.80B36B50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com; seun.ojedeji@gmail.com Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights [Part of string deleted to make shorter] This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document. Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying: The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts [i.e., the considerations document] to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI [someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]. As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization [i.e., staff] to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. [It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.] The Board encourages the CCWG [i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist [the staff] with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community [i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals] in their deliberations of the final recommendations. In other words: * The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. * The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI * Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. * As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. * CCWG (really, this subgroup) needs to create examples of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. * CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, * Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. * CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community. * Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. * Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations. Does that make sense? (With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), within the scope of each Work Stream." (emphasis added)) Greg * Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Stepping back, In my thinking, it is a great step forward for the icann board to accept the principle of WSG2 HR 's framework of HRIA. so how is it going to work across the ICANN eco system? rd On Apr 13, 2017 6:57 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of the FOI - HR.

Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and the availability of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below).

One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be involved in this analysis.

So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically will have adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”):

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/ HRIA_Web.pdf

[image: cid:image003.png@01D2B466.72809920]

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

[image: cid:image002.png@01D2B46E.80B36B50]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com; seun.ojedeji@gmail.com *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr@icann.org; accountability-cross- community@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

[Part of string deleted to make shorter]

This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> < ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:

The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]*.

As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their deliberations of the final recommendations.

In other words:

- The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations.

- As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment.

- CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff,

- Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment.

- CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community.

- Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations.

- Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations.

Does that make sense?

(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each Work Stream*." (emphasis added))

Greg

-

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com

------------------------------

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Dear all, Please excuse my silence in this discussion so far, but I was on a family holiday in the Swiss Alps and taken up with grand-parental duties. I had a brief Skype chat exchange with Niels a few days ago, confirming that the letter had been drafted before completion of the Considerations document. Meanwhile, we have followed the exchanges on this list and concur to a large extent with the collective interpretation of the Board letter. We had thought that the letter was clear, but of course there is always room for improvement! In any case, let me sum up below the Board objective in sending the letter: The objective was to both to congratulate the Subgroup on the progress of its work to date, and to let the Subgroup know that the Board asked ICANN organization to conduct an impact assessment of the current draft FoI recommendations (including the Considerations document). The purpose of this request is to help understand how the implementation of the Framework of Interpretation might impact ICANN's work and identify if there are any issues from this implementation that might need to be addressed or mitigated. This assessment will be shared with the community to help inform the community in its final deliberations on the Subgroup's work. The Subgroup as well as the CCWG are encouraged to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist with this impact assessment. I hope this helps clarify things. With best wishes for a happy holiday weekend and best regards Markus On 13 Apr 2017, at 23:19, McAuley, David via Accountability-Cross-Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> wrote:

[Part of string deleted to make shorter]

This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document.

Best regards, David

David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:

The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts [i.e., the considerations document] to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI [someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations].

As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization [i.e., staff] to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. [It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.] The Board encourages the CCWG [i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist [the staff] with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community [i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals] in their deliberations of the final recommendations.

In other words:

The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. CCWG (really, this subgroup) needs to create examples of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community. Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations. Does that make sense?

(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), within the scope of each Work Stream." (emphasis added))

Greg

Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Exactly what I had earlier interpreted the letter to mean, but it's okay that we can at least agree with Greg instead. ;-) Happy Easter to everyone who celebrates it. Regards On Apr 13, 2017 22:10, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:

The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]*.

As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their deliberations of the final recommendations.

In other words:

- The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. - As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. - CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, - Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. - CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community. - Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. - Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations.

Does that make sense?

(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each Work Stream*." (emphasis added))

Greg

-

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

That's right, I wanted to know what/who Board meant when they mention "ICANN organisation" I thought it was staff as it made sense to me if such impact assessment were formerly conducted by staff to better inform the Board and the community on implementation implications

However based on Niel's message it seem it's referring to the community which is all clear now.

Regards

On Apr 13, 2017 19:40, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

...

This seems reasonable. Seun had noted he thought the Board letter indicated they were asking staff to do something. Seun observed that when the Board says “ICANN organization”, it means staff.

Anne

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:06 AM *To:* McAuley, David *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

I agree with Niels and David.

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:58 AM, McAuley, David via Ws2-hr < ws2-hr@icann.org> wrote:

This seems like a good approach Niels, thank you.

Best regards, David

David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

-----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:52 AM To: Remmy Nweke <remmyn@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

Dear all,

A board member confirmed to me that the Considerations document was not considered when this letter was composed and that the Public Comment period is probably the best moment for the board to give input this.

I would propose that the CCWG co-chairs and I will respond with a letter to the board that it seems we have addressed most issues with the FoI and Considerations document and that we would like to invite the board to continue to provide input via discussions in the plenary, the subgroup and during the upcoming public comments period for this document.

Best,

Niels

On 04/13/2017 12:06 AM, Remmy Nweke wrote:

...

Definitely this letter is not for this group.

Like Niels noted, we may wait until the public comment to get more information from the Board on this and remain focused on the current assignment.

Regards Remmy

____ REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media [/Multiple-award winning medium/] (DigitalSENSE Business News <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎> PC Summit 2017 <http://www.pcsummit.com.ng>, December 7-8 @Federal Palace, Victoria Island, Lagos.

*Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>) _________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote:

Dear all,

I am forwarding you a letter that I and the CCWG co-chairs received from the board, please find it attached.

It seems like this letter was composed before the Considerations document was finalized, therefore I think it would be apt that we continue with our readings and ask the board to provide us with their analysis during the Public Comments period.

All the best,

Niels

-- 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

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>

-- 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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

------------------------------

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr