Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
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> Date: 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 Destinataire: "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org" <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" <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 the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to 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 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.
****************************************************************************************************
Considering that what the lawyers have proposed is based on what the CCWG has requested[1], I will not raise any further disagreement on this. However, I will reiterate that what we have done is NOT in-line with the interpretation of what was written in the report[2] and I hope no one disagree with that. Regards 1. Hopefully the request was based on consensus. 2. Even though we may say what was in the report was probably a mistake but it is what it is. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 May 2016 9:43 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
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> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org" <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "Rosemary E. Fei" < rfei@adlercolvin.com>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" <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 the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to 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 www.sidley.com
[image: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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>:
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> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org" <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "Rosemary E. Fei" < rfei@adlercolvin.com>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" <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 the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to 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 www.sidley.com
[image: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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> 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>>: 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>> Date: 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 Destinataire: "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" <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 the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to 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> www.sidley.com <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> 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
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>:
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> 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>:
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> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org" <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "Rosemary E. Fei" < rfei@adlercolvin.com>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, " Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" <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 the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to 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 www.sidley.com
[image: 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 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 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>>:
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>> 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>>:
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>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" <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> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
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> 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 <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>>> *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>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <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>>>, "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>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <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>>>, "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>>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <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>>" <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 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/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>> 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- 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>
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
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
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 <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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
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
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 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
+1 to Greg. I'm certain that there will be no such statement or intent to require the high standard of approval for FoI (I keep repeating this again and again). I think - if necessary - one can even try to find the transcripts of the calls, where we always referred to the same process for FOI as for WS1. We wouldn't even have got this discussions if there were no inconsistency in the bylaw drafting, so I am even a bit surprised how the issue that has never been even discussed (the requirement for full approval) out of sudden is being debated as something that we could ever "say" or "write". Best regards Tanya On 02/05/16 22:20, Greg Shatan 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/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 <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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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 >
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Greg - hopefully we can finalize this now. On 5/2/2016 10:20 PM, Greg Shatan 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/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 <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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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 >
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
+1 On 02-May-16 23:09, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks Greg - hopefully we can finalize this now.
On 5/2/2016 10:20 PM, Greg Shatan 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> 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 <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>> 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 <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>> 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 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853> >>>>> 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Why are you all surprised. Notwithstanding Hanlon's Law, this looks deliberate. On 02/05/16 21:20, Greg Shatan 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/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 <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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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 >
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All Approval of FOI , among other entities, by chartering organisations is an absolute necessity and need to be explicitly and clearly mentioned. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 3 May 2016, at 10:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Why are you all surprised.
Notwithstanding Hanlon's Law, this looks deliberate.
On 02/05/16 21:20, Greg Shatan 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/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 <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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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 >
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Thomas and Seun, Thanks a lot for this suggestion. We're coming closer. I have a remaining issue though: if we formulate the bylaw in this manner, the working model of the CCWG charter only seems applicable to the ratification of the chartering organizations, whereas we agreed we would use the CCWG model, as followed in WS1, for the whole process in WS2. Is there a way in which we can clarify that the decision making process and working model as defined in the CCWG charter is used applicable for the development of the FoI? Best, Niels On 05/02/2016 04:24 PM, Thomas Rickert 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 >>>>> 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/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 <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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> 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 >
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear All, I am on the way to the airport back to Geneva. I wish to tell people that claims that there was a mistake in the report of CCWG. I do not believe so . Clear and explicit reference to chartering organization's is an absolute necessity We do not need the twin terms " unless and until" as one is more than sufficient We do not need to mention the term Governmental Authority in ICANN Mission /Core value. We must avoid giving a blanket agreement upfront of any future agreements which may be signed the texts of which are unknown. These are clear point and need to be fully observed. Regards Hear from you tomorrow after 1200 UTC 2016-05-02 16:19 GMT+02:00 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
Hi Tijani, I think that the reference to "consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2" and the reference to the same process as in Work Stream one in the proposed bylaw language does, in fact, mean the approval of chartering organisations. Furthermore, when we were agreeing on the HR bylaw language, the main idea was that the FOI will follow the same process as WS1, so the initial reference to CO's approval was supposed to serve this purpose. Thus, the new language, in my opinion, is fine, clear and fully in line with the intent of the report Other than that, +1 to Greg and Niels for all the points. Best regards Tatiana On 02/05/16 10:22, 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Colleagues There is a need to explicitly reference the requirement of being approved by Chartering Organizations. Implicit reference could give rise to misinterpretation and /or misuse of the provisions Kavouss 2016-05-02 10:44 GMT+02:00 Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de>:
Hi Tijani, I think that the reference to "consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2" and the reference to the same process as in Work Stream one in the proposed bylaw language does, in fact, mean the approval of chartering organisations. Furthermore, when we were agreeing on the HR bylaw language, the main idea was that the FOI will follow the same process as WS1, so the initial reference to CO's approval was supposed to serve this purpose. Thus, the new language, in my opinion, is fine, clear and fully in line with the intent of the report Other than that, +1 to Greg and Niels for all the points. Best regards Tatiana
On 02/05/16 10:22, 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> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>, " bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <bylaws-coord@icann.org>>" < bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <bylaws-coord@icann.org>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <acct-staff@icann.org>>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com <rfei@adlercolvin.com>>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>" <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <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 <holly.gregory@sidley.com>> 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 <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 <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
-- 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss 2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
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>>:
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>> 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>>:
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>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" <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> 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>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- 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
Dear Kavouss, Am not arguiung with you about that point. I think what Greg, me and several others have argued is that bylaw text is consistent (except for 'or unless'). Could you please elaborate why you think it is not? Best, Niels On 05/02/2016 10:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss
2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
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>>>: > > 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 <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>>>: >> >> 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>>> >>> *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>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>> <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>>>, "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>>> >>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <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>>>, >>> "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>>>, >>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <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>>" >>> <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 >>> 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/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 <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 <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
Dear All, Oncde again 1. we need to make direct and explicit refrence to the need the FOI to be approved, among others, by chartering organization 2. I am against the use of the twin words" unless and until" one is sufficient ,usually the term "until "is used in all legal terms that I have seen since 1971. 3. I am against the use of the term " governmental authority " in the ICANN core values/mission 4. I am against to give a blanket agreement for the text which yet to be drafted Regards Kavouss Regards Kavouss 2016-05-02 10:48 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear Kavouss,
Am not arguiung with you about that point. I think what Greg, me and several others have argued is that bylaw text is consistent (except for 'or unless'). Could you please elaborate why you think it is not?
Best,
Niels
On 05/02/2016 10:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss
2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
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>>>: > > 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 <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
: >> >> 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>>> >>> *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>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>> <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>>>, "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>>> >>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <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>>>, >>> "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>>>, >>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <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>>" >>> <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 >>> 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/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 <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 <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
This is fine and a good argument, but I guess the problem is that the draft bylaw on human rights was *not* word by word with the text of the bylaw introduced in the proposal on the first place. This is why we asked for a clarification. Best regards Tanya On 02/05/16 10:46, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss
2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
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>>>: > > 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 <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>>>: >> >> 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>>> >>> *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>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>> <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>>>, "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>>> >>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <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>>>, >>> "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>>>, >>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <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>>" >>> <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 >>> 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/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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Niels and Tatiana, I agreed with your complaint against the bylaws text proposed the first time because it didn’t reflect exactly the spirit of the CCWG final proposal ratified by the Chartering organizations. The correction made does not reflect the CCWG final proposal either. You said it is implicit; why we do not explicit it for clarity? Also this proposed bylaws text says " ...in each case, using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations ». Those cases are: approved for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 approved by the Board So for the approval by the CCWG and the approval by the board, the same process and criteria as for WS 1 recommendations will be used. You see that this process and those criteria will be used for the approval of CCWG and the Board. How this would imply the ratification of the Chartering organization? 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". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 09:49, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> a écrit :
This is fine and a good argument, but I guess the problem is that the draft bylaw on human rights was not word by word with the text of the bylaw introduced in the proposal on the first place. This is why we asked for a clarification. Best regards Tanya
On 02/05/16 10:46, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss
2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>: 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 < <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>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 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh < <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>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 < <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>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>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" < <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>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>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>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>>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff < <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>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>>>, "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>>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG < <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>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>>" <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 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/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>> 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 <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>
-- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Tijani +1 Kavouss 2016-05-02 14:34 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>:
Niels and Tatiana,
I agreed with your complaint against the bylaws text proposed the first time because it didn’t reflect exactly the spirit of the CCWG final proposal ratified by the Chartering organizations. The correction made does not reflect the CCWG final proposal either. You said it is implicit; why we do not explicit it for clarity? Also this proposed bylaws text says " ...in each case, using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations ». Those cases are:
- approved for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 - approved by the Board
So for the approval by the CCWG and the approval by the board, the same process and criteria as for WS 1 recommendations will be used.
You see that this process and those criteria will be used for the approval of CCWG and the Board. How this would imply the ratification of the Chartering organization?
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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *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 09:49, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> a écrit :
This is fine and a good argument, but I guess the problem is that the draft bylaw on human rights was *not* word by word with the text of the bylaw introduced in the proposal on the first place. This is why we asked for a clarification. Best regards Tanya
On 02/05/16 10:46, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, The drafted bylaws MUST be consistent word by word to the text of the Supplemental CCWG Proposal .Example text on Human Rights Regards Kavouss
2016-05-02 10:11 GMT+02:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
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>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>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>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>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" < <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff < <acct-staff@icann.org>acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG < <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>
sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com
<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" <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> 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>
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
-- 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
participants (12)
-
avri doria -
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Tijani BEN JEMAA