Considerations on next steps
Dear all, Following on from discussions in Singapore, here are a few observations which we hope will help you in assessing next steps in your work around human rights. Overall, as a start we would encourage you to use this list as a tool to let the discussion mature, in particular regarding objectives, modalities and feasibility - as an informal "working party" if you will. To provide you with some further food for thought: * There is no particular definition of a "working party" as a formal structure within ICANN. To have a process established as a formal structure within ICANN it could either take the form of a Working Group (under the behest of any interested SO/AC), or a Cross-Community Working Group (with multiple SO/ACs as Chartering organizations) or as a Working Group instituted by the Board (like the Geographic Regions Working Group) or committees launched by the CEO (e.g. various discussion groups in the past). - Before deciding on a particular structure, you need to be clear what the objective / scope is and from that, which mechanism is best suited to achieve them. It probably would be helpful that those interested in this effort would first define and agree on the objective and scope of such an effort, so as to help determine whether a CCWG or Working Group, or else such as a fact-finding ad hoc group, is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the agreed objective. (The reason to set up a CCWG, for example, can be to assess the effectiveness of an existing procedure; or produce a fact-finding document; or a set of recommendations; first for SO/AC approval, then for submission to the ICANN Board). * You will also need to establish a specific methodology; first, you may want to consider here to do some fact-finding and agree on the focus of the work, so as to be able to start familiarising others in the community with the ideas and objectives at stake. This could eventually take the form of a charter or statement of work that interested parties could sign up to. - As an example, should the objective / scope be to provide recommendations to the Board that are developed jointly by a number of SO/ACs, then you may want to consider pursuing a CCWG. This would require at a minimum two SO/ACs that would serve as the chartering organisations for such an effort. The formation of a CCWG is typically at the initiative of an SO/AC - the chair or representative of an SO/AC will approach the other SO/ACs to determine whether there is interest to form a CCWG on a particular topic. If so, a small number of representatives are requested to participate in the drafting team that is responsible for developing a charter. Once the drafting team has completed its work, the charter is submitted to all the interested SO/ACs for approval according to their own processes. (Based on recent experiences running CWG/CCWG, we have good illustrations available that can help as a starting point for any drafting effort). In order to charter a Cross-Community Working Group, two or more SO/ACs would need to adopt the charter. So for NCSG and ALAC for example, they would need to get the GNSO as a whole to support the process. As raised during the Human Rights workshop at ICANN52, SO/ACs deciding on the creation of new workstreams normally involves consideration of the current workload and priorities. You may also want to think of who could be the 'champions' of the issue across different SO/ACs, who can start organising the discussion in a more structured manner. - Note that as mentioned above, there are also other (ad-hoc) mechanisms that could be pursued depending on the objective, such as a WG or discussion group. - You will also want to take into account that in its Singapore Communique, the GAC resolved to create a dedicated working group to look at this issue. It will be important to make sure there is linkage / coordination with other initiatives that are ongoing or have commenced elsewhere on the subject. (from the GAC Communique: "9. International Law, Human Rights and ICANN - The GAC decided to establish a Working Group on Human Rights Issues and the Application of International Law as these matters relate to ICANN activities. The GAC will also monitor community developments and consider how any GAC initiatives can complement any such developments.") All the best, Jean-Jacques Vice-President, Global Stakeholder Engagement (Europe & Civil Society) ICANN Tel: +44 77 400 73176 Skype: jean-jacques.sahel.icann Email: jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org');> @pointjjs One World, One Internet [cid:689AB906-EEAC-46C8-8257-7506F7B78BD8]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, Thank a lot for this Jean-Jacques. Great to see a sudden flurry on this list. Lee Hibbard of the Council of Europe has already graciously volunteered to closely follow the proceedings in the GAC on this topic. I hope that my previous email will contribute to the discussion on scope and objective. I will send out an email after this to invite people for a conference call on this topic. In the mean time I would like to invite people to bring up topics they would like to (see) researched and discussed where it comes to Human Rights and ICANN ahead of the meeting in Buenos Aires. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 03/17/2015 06:28 PM, Jean-Jacques Sahel wrote:
Dear all,
Following on from discussions in Singapore, here are a few observations which we hope will help you in assessing next steps in your work around human rights.
Overall, as a start we would encourage you to use this list as a tool to let the discussion mature, in particular regarding objectives, modalities and feasibility - as an informal “working party” if you will. To provide you with some further food for thought:
· There is no particular definition of a “working party” as a formal structure within ICANN. To have a process established as a formal structure within ICANN it could either take the form of a Working Group (under the behest of any interested SO/AC), or a Cross-Community Working Group (with multiple SO/ACs as Chartering organizations) or as a Working Group instituted by the Board (like the Geographic Regions Working Group) or committees launched by the CEO (e.g. various discussion groups in the past).
- Before deciding on a particular structure, you need to be clear what the objective / scope is and from that, which mechanism is best suited to achieve them. It probably would be helpful that those interested in this effort would *first define and agree on the objective and scope* of such an effort, so as to help determine whether a CCWG or Working Group, or else such as a fact-finding ad hoc group, is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the agreed objective. (The reason to set up a CCWG, for example, can be to assess the effectiveness of an existing procedure; or produce a fact-finding document; or a set of recommendations; first for SO/AC approval, then for submission to the ICANN Board).
· You will also need to establish a specific methodology; first, you may want to consider here to do some fact-finding and agree on the focus of the work, so as to be able to start familiarising others in the community with the ideas and objectives at stake. This could eventually take the form of a charter or statement of work that interested parties could sign up to.
- As an example, should the objective / scope be to provide recommendations to the Board that are developed jointly by a number of SO/ACs, then you may want to consider pursuing a CCWG. This would require at a minimum two SO/ACs that would serve as the chartering organisations for such an effort. The formation of a CCWG is typically at the initiative of an SO/AC – the chair or representative of an SO/AC will approach the other SO/ACs to determine whether there is interest to form a CCWG on a particular topic. If so, a small number of representatives are requested to participate in the drafting team that is responsible for developing a charter. Once the drafting team has completed its work, the charter is submitted to all the interested SO/ACs for approval according to their own processes. (Based on recent experiences running CWG/CCWG, we have good illustrations available that can help as a starting point for any drafting effort). In order to charter a Cross-Community Working Group, two or more SO/ACs would need to adopt the charter. So for NCSG and ALAC for example, they would need to get the GNSO as a whole to support the process. As raised during the Human Rights workshop at ICANN52, SO/ACs deciding on the creation of new workstreams normally involves consideration of the current workload and priorities. You may also want to think of who could be the ‘champions’ of the issue across different SO/ACs, who can start organising the discussion in a more structured manner.
- Note that as mentioned above, there are also other (ad-hoc) mechanisms that could be pursued depending on the objective, such as a WG or discussion group.
- You will also want to take into account that in its Singapore Communique, the GAC resolved to create a dedicated working group to look at this issue. It will be important to make sure there is linkage / coordination with other initiatives that are ongoing or have commenced elsewhere on the subject. (from the GAC Communique: “9. International Law, Human Rights and ICANN - The GAC decided to establish a Working Group on Human Rights Issues and the Application of International Law as these matters relate to ICANN activities. The GAC will also monitor community developments and consider how any GAC initiatives can complement any such developments.”)
All the best,
Jean-Jacques
Vice-President, Global Stakeholder Engagement (Europe & Civil Society)
ICANN
Tel: +44 77 400 73176
Skype: jean-jacques.sahel.icann
Email: jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org');>
@pointjjs
/One World, One Internet/
cid:689AB906-EEAC-46C8-8257-7506F7B78BD8
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCGuQAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpvLEH/21BMcRVjrXlizbQwKoPyYaA MN6Lbg+PvQtA0IdHvqslEhtUwML4qFkTPKWrFTKpnbLGD19qgE7hlWyeSOFR011r 6z2F/POeZ4nYrSg0MLSP+MluYbCqftqLL/wRoLE/OtDk/6jNqVq0JTBc5StbHtBE +oT350wqDmP4EqLsf7QMmTICRGfprCK1mk5uXHnnsUmz/GQhyQCx9Lv5H+nSEg5L /F6gMWE/UX5IuaH72qF1ESWbOdNZzG637vKrhlbVh6FYPMhtw+nF7FS/yPpngCeJ i9s1ARgJxUdB163eQt9qLvG8hxP7J+txWFCRfHiFtL8zVFNHXNY5un2uLf1nil4= =PLCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, When the idea of a working party being established to deal with this issue was first suggested in Singapore, I was apprehensive. The lack of formality, and the light-weight nature of a working party didn’t seem appealing. Since then, I’ve pretty much changed my mind. I think a light-weight working party with a mission very much consistent with what Jean-Jacques is suggesting is a good idea. Normally, in a GNSO PDP, GNSO Policy Staff scope the issues that will become a policy development process. Part of a final issues report that results from scoping the issues may be a suggested charter for a PDP working group. This is something I believe this working party can do. It can also solicit feedback on any work done using a public comments forum, at different stages in its work. The text provided by Niels and Marilia seems like as good a place to start as any to me. The objective, IMHO, shouldn’t necessarily be to make recommendations to the ICANN board on how to integrate human rights principles in ICANN’s bylaws or the GNSO's operating procedures, but rather scope those issues out thoroughly in order to develop a draft charter that a more formal CCWG could hopefully adopt with ease. Considering that there are members of different ACs/SOs currently subscribed to this list, it should be relatively easy to determine the likelihood of ACs/SOs adopting any work coming out of this “Working Party”. However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. There is also currently a joint GNSO/CCNSO effort to develop a framework that could be readily used to charter a CCWG. Check out: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community and https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/Home In terms of process, it might be worthwhile trying to sync the output of this group with whatever the other produces, so worth keeping an eye on. I would be very happy if (hopefully not years from now) this group’s work eventually results in GNSO PDPs and policy recommendations that give human rights principles such as privacy, data protection and freedom of expression in ICANN’s contracts with registries and registrars the same level of importance and protection that trademark and IP interests are now granted. But one step at a time. Thanks. Amr On Mar 17, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Jean-Jacques Sahel <jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, Following on from discussions in Singapore, here are a few observations which we hope will help you in assessing next steps in your work around human rights.
Overall, as a start we would encourage you to use this list as a tool to let the discussion mature, in particular regarding objectives, modalities and feasibility - as an informal “working party” if you will. To provide you with some further food for thought:
· There is no particular definition of a “working party” as a formal structure within ICANN. To have a process established as a formal structure within ICANN it could either take the form of a Working Group (under the behest of any interested SO/AC), or a Cross-Community Working Group (with multiple SO/ACs as Chartering organizations) or as a Working Group instituted by the Board (like the Geographic Regions Working Group) or committees launched by the CEO (e.g. various discussion groups in the past).
- Before deciding on a particular structure, you need to be clear what the objective / scope is and from that, which mechanism is best suited to achieve them. It probably would be helpful that those interested in this effort would first define and agree on the objective and scope of such an effort, so as to help determine whether a CCWG or Working Group, or else such as a fact-finding ad hoc group, is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the agreed objective. (The reason to set up a CCWG, for example, can be to assess the effectiveness of an existing procedure; or produce a fact-finding document; or a set of recommendations; first for SO/AC approval, then for submission to the ICANN Board).
· You will also need to establish a specific methodology; first, you may want to consider here to do some fact-finding and agree on the focus of the work, so as to be able to start familiarising others in the community with the ideas and objectives at stake. This could eventually take the form of a charter or statement of work that interested parties could sign up to.
- As an example, should the objective / scope be to provide recommendations to the Board that are developed jointly by a number of SO/ACs, then you may want to consider pursuing a CCWG. This would require at a minimum two SO/ACs that would serve as the chartering organisations for such an effort. The formation of a CCWG is typically at the initiative of an SO/AC – the chair or representative of an SO/AC will approach the other SO/ACs to determine whether there is interest to form a CCWG on a particular topic. If so, a small number of representatives are requested to participate in the drafting team that is responsible for developing a charter. Once the drafting team has completed its work, the charter is submitted to all the interested SO/ACs for approval according to their own processes. (Based on recent experiences running CWG/CCWG, we have good illustrations available that can help as a starting point for any drafting effort). In order to charter a Cross-Community Working Group, two or more SO/ACs would need to adopt the charter. So for NCSG and ALAC for example, they would need to get the GNSO as a whole to support the process. As raised during the Human Rights workshop at ICANN52, SO/ACs deciding on the creation of new workstreams normally involves consideration of the current workload and priorities. You may also want to think of who could be the ‘champions’ of the issue across different SO/ACs, who can start organising the discussion in a more structured manner.
- Note that as mentioned above, there are also other (ad-hoc) mechanisms that could be pursued depending on the objective, such as a WG or discussion group.
- You will also want to take into account that in its Singapore Communique, the GAC resolved to create a dedicated working group to look at this issue. It will be important to make sure there is linkage / coordination with other initiatives that are ongoing or have commenced elsewhere on the subject. (from the GAC Communique: “9. International Law, Human Rights and ICANN - The GAC decided to establish a Working Group on Human Rights Issues and the Application of International Law as these matters relate to ICANN activities. The GAC will also monitor community developments and consider how any GAC initiatives can complement any such developments.”)
All the best,
Jean-Jacques
Vice-President, Global Stakeholder Engagement (Europe & Civil Society) ICANN
Tel: +44 77 400 73176 Skype: jean-jacques.sahel.icann Email: jean-jacques.sahel@icann.org @pointjjs
One World, One Internet <image001.jpg>
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Dear Amr: On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work.
I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership. That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-) Kindest regards, Olivier
Hi, Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency. I agree that we don’t need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That’s why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO’s stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don’t recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it. Thanks. Amr On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work.
I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Dear Amr, sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don’t need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That’s why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO’s stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don’t recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
So what are the next steps? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: cc-humanrights@icann.org Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps Dear Amr, sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi Michele, we will go along with the idea of working party. and we are going to have a confcall soon. Niels and Marilia drafted document, what they already shared here. with the objectives and scope for the working party. "Draft goals and scope for CCWP HR Cross-community working party for analyzing potential Human Rights implications of ICANN’s policies and procedures Member organizations: (name the SOs and ACs) Each of the participating Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) agrees to work towards achieving the goals of this document and to seek input and participation from their communities. Background: This cross community working party (CCWP) seeks to map and understand the issues and potential solutions for the impact that policies, procedures and operations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have on human rights. In particular it focuses on the corporate responsibility of ICANN to respect human rights. It builds on a long term community engagement on this topic, further catalysed with the publication of the paper 'ICANN's procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values', as commissioned by the Council of Europe, and after sessions held in London, Los Angeles and Singapore. It seeks to improve ICANN's measures to respect human rights, in accordance with article 4 of ICANN's articles of incorporation. Objective: The CCWP on ICANN and Human Rights would have the purpose to raise awareness, provide information, facilitate dialogue and make suggestions to the ICANN community on ways to better harmonize ICANN’s policies and procedures with internationally recognized human rights standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The working party will focus on human rights that are directly impacted by ICANN policy decisions, procedures and operations. Responsibilities and scope of work: (i) To continue the process of raising awareness about the interplay between ICANN’s policies, procedures and operations and human rights; (ii) To map and collect information from the community about cases as well as current ICANN policies,procedures and operations that present an impact on human rights in which further guidance on how to harmonize policies and procedures with human rights would be necessary;; (iii) To develop guidelines for the procedures that are in place or that should be created in the policy development process to ensure the respect for human rights; (iv) To provide information, suggestions and recommendations to the chartering organizations and to the broader ICANN community on how ICANN’s policies and procedures can be developed and implemented consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards. This input can inform the policy development processes as defined in the ICANN Bylaws. (v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights. (vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate (vii) To carry out further discussions about the pertinence and timing for the creation of a cross-community working group on this issue. Membership The membership of the Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the ICANN community. The Working Party will serve as a focal point for the discussion, knowledge dissemination and communication about the impact of ICANN's policies and procedures on Human Rights Its activities will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner." Rafik 2015-03-18 23:04 GMT+09:00 Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com>:
So what are the next steps?
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: cc-humanrights@icann.org Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps
Dear Amr,
sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Brevity is not your forte :-) Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Mar 2015, at 11:58, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Michele, we will go along with the idea of working party. and we are going to have a confcall soon. Niels and Marilia drafted document, what they already shared here. with the objectives and scope for the working party. "Draft goals and scope for CCWP HR Cross-community working party for analyzing potential Human Rights implications of ICANN’s policies and procedures Member organizations: (name the SOs and ACs) Each of the participating Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) agrees to work towards achieving the goals of this document and to seek input and participation from their communities. Background: This cross community working party (CCWP) seeks to map and understand the issues and potential solutions for the impact that policies, procedures and operations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have on human rights. In particular it focuses on the corporate responsibility of ICANN to respect human rights. It builds on a long term community engagement on this topic, further catalysed with the publication of the paper 'ICANN's procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values', as commissioned by the Council of Europe, and after sessions held in London, Los Angeles and Singapore. It seeks to improve ICANN's measures to respect human rights, in accordance with article 4 of ICANN's articles of incorporation. Objective: The CCWP on ICANN and Human Rights would have the purpose to raise awareness, provide information, facilitate dialogue and make suggestions to the ICANN community on ways to better harmonize ICANN’s policies and procedures with internationally recognized human rights standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The working party will focus on human rights that are directly impacted by ICANN policy decisions, procedures and operations. Responsibilities and scope of work: (i) To continue the process of raising awareness about the interplay between ICANN’s policies, procedures and operations and human rights; (ii) To map and collect information from the community about cases as well as current ICANN policies,procedures and operations that present an impact on human rights in which further guidance on how to harmonize policies and procedures with human rights would be necessary;; (iii) To develop guidelines for the procedures that are in place or that should be created in the policy development process to ensure the respect for human rights; (iv) To provide information, suggestions and recommendations to the chartering organizations and to the broader ICANN community on how ICANN’s policies and procedures can be developed and implemented consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards. This input can inform the policy development processes as defined in the ICANN Bylaws. (v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights. (vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate (vii) To carry out further discussions about the pertinence and timing for the creation of a cross-community working group on this issue. Membership The membership of the Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the ICANN community. The Working Party will serve as a focal point for the discussion, knowledge dissemination and communication about the impact of ICANN's policies and procedures on Human Rights Its activities will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner." Rafik 2015-03-18 23:04 GMT+09:00 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>: So what are the next steps? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: cc-humanrights@icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org> Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps Dear Amr, sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi Michele, I copied and paste the proposed text for your convenience ;) Rafik 2015-03-23 21:01 GMT+09:00 Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com>:
Brevity is not your forte :-)
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal
On 23 Mar 2015, at 11:58, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michele,
we will go along with the idea of working party. and we are going to have a confcall soon. Niels and Marilia drafted document, what they already shared here. with the objectives and scope for the working party.
"Draft goals and scope for CCWP HR
Cross-community working party for analyzing potential Human Rights implications of ICANN’s policies and procedures
Member organizations: (name the SOs and ACs)
Each of the participating Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) agrees to work towards achieving the goals of this document and to seek input and participation from their communities.
Background:
This cross community working party (CCWP) seeks to map and understand the issues and potential solutions for the impact that policies, procedures and operations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have on human rights. In particular it focuses on the corporate responsibility of ICANN to respect human rights. It builds on a long term community engagement on this topic, further catalysed with the publication of the paper 'ICANN's procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values', as commissioned by the Council of Europe, and after sessions held in London, Los Angeles and Singapore. It seeks to improve ICANN's measures to respect human rights, in accordance with article 4 of ICANN's articles of incorporation.
Objective:
The CCWP on ICANN and Human Rights would have the purpose to raise awareness, provide information, facilitate dialogue and make suggestions to the ICANN community on ways to better harmonize ICANN’s policies and procedures with internationally recognized human rights standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The working party will focus on human rights that are directly impacted by ICANN policy decisions, procedures and operations.
Responsibilities and scope of work:
(i) To continue the process of raising awareness about the interplay between ICANN’s policies, procedures and operations and human rights;
(ii) To map and collect information from the community about cases as well as current ICANN policies,procedures and operations that present an impact on human rights in which further guidance on how to harmonize policies and procedures with human rights would be necessary;;
(iii) To develop guidelines for the procedures that are in place or that should be created in the policy development process to ensure the respect for human rights;
(iv) To provide information, suggestions and recommendations to the chartering organizations and to the broader ICANN community on how ICANN’s policies and procedures can be developed and implemented consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards. This input can inform the policy development processes as defined in the ICANN Bylaws.
(v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights.
(vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate
(vii) To carry out further discussions about the pertinence and timing for the creation of a cross-community working group on this issue.
Membership
The membership of the Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the ICANN community. The Working Party will serve as a focal point for the discussion, knowledge dissemination and communication about the impact of ICANN's policies and procedures on Human Rights Its activities will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner."
Rafik
2015-03-18 23:04 GMT+09:00 Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com>:
So what are the next steps?
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: cc-humanrights@icann.org Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps
Dear Amr,
sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Dear Rafik, in the text you have quoted: On 23/03/2015 12:57, Rafik Dammak wrote:
(v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights.
developed -> development and...
(vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate
"Statements" is a loaded word which implies ratification by SOs & ACs. Is this the intent? Kind regards, Olivier
Hi Olivier, I cannot speak for the authors and their intention here. that is just guessing : this WP can make a statement as group but not representing SOs/ACs positions i.e. no ratification needed. it is better that the authors Niels and Marilia clarify this part. Best, Rafik 2015-03-24 2:11 GMT+09:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Rafik,
in the text you have quoted:
On 23/03/2015 12:57, Rafik Dammak wrote:
(v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights.
developed -> development and...
(vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate
"Statements" is a loaded word which implies ratification by SOs & ACs. Is this the intent? Kind regards,
Olivier
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Olivier, Thank you for this questions. It was indeed intended as indicated by Rafik. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 03/24/2015 03:25 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I cannot speak for the authors and their intention here. that is just guessing : this WP can make a statement as group but not representing SOs/ACs positions i.e. no ratification needed. it is better that the authors Niels and Marilia clarify this part.
Best,
Rafik
2015-03-24 2:11 GMT+09:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>:
Dear Rafik,
in the text you have quoted:
On 23/03/2015 12:57, Rafik Dammak wrote:
(v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed and/or being implemented may impact on human rights.
developed -> development and...
(vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate
"Statements" is a loaded word which implies ratification by SOs & ACs. Is this the intent? Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVGzVFAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjppXgH/j2hbKjDtuR6q67SeBrqEkHq 4EoxjrNXvvvYXYz9XnNH4DaXeyf772yMLZKYokez/s/ZcIh8P10LPZgp2+f6XnbX MrKzT3Csa2EeNYro1r6OVa49BpmhSthyk6XDO9A040wp3YtGzHmMX/bwwvDaLCGr MLTu9DW+pMojmqpjBPFy1OFIg+c6Kd+Lb4TKryRakeopZlMEV2NETw5QQ82uuWb+ HyAbwUWBA//aAyt+RS/BfFWqwe6Qs0LyZwPOZs1sN93M/jmioxjGLnw6xEPNSUkA B35Z3uc0vpan3oCs797zEdgQkR0iVKYmNcOC8d77C5KZpzPbNosd5R/kzXUZrns= =ScUa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (6)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Jean-Jacques Sahel -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Niels ten Oever -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rafik Dammak