I do not support the idea of a call. I think that, to be formal, we must create two alternatives, both of which are "minimal". One which refers to the UDHR and one which does not. These two alternatives must be then placed before Members of the CCWG (i.e. not us participants) as the people chartered in this regard. I personally support the UDHR verson, particularly after talking with Markus Kummer recently. Mr reasons are as follows: 1. It's the 'minimal' HR text that is support globally. While I like the business principles, I think it's a step to far at this stage. 2. Leaving out a reference to any document exposes ICANN to the possibility that ANY human rights instrument or idea could be forced on is, such as the right to drinking water. On 11/10/15 15:52, Avri Doria wrote:

a. do we send just the agreed upon minimal bylaws text? b. or do we also send all the bracketed text?

While I have been somewhat ambivalent on this issue, I think there is more support in both the WP and the larger group for minimal text in the bylaw. I would support option a.

avri

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

+ 1 to supporting option (a) from me. I would go for the minimal bylaw text (ok, with /legal/ instruments in brackets if necessary). I certainly do not support the inclusion of the UN Guiding Principles in the proposed bylaw text even in brackets. We are summarising public comments, and (if I remember correctly) the only opinion there about guiding principles in the statement from Business Constituency that it doesn't support such a reference. Furthermore, even if we are going to include international human rights law instruments, UN Guiding principles won't be the case because they are neither treaty nor declaration. I doubt they can be characterized as "international human rights law". Last but not least, if we make such inclusion it's getting us too far from the second option of proposed bylaw text, which was supported in the public comments (7 of 23). I would rather suggest to add a paragraph about the poll results and say there that some of the WP4 member who answered the poll suggested to include the UN Guiding principles into the bylaw. We can discuss this issue further when we will be writing explanatory document to the bylaw text. Best regards Tatiana On 11/10/15 16:52, Avri Doria wrote:

a. do we send just the agreed upon minimal bylaws text? b. or do we also send all the bracketed text?

While I have been somewhat ambivalent on this issue, I think there is more support in both the WP and the larger group for minimal text in the bylaw. I would support option a.

avri

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Paul What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest. This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here. I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments. On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and

Nigel I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below. My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR. Paul On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

...

Paul

What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest.

This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.

I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments.

On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and

---

Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com

Greg, + 1 and +111. thanks a lot for nailing it down. I absolutely agree. The purpose of the document is to summarise/analyse public comments. I believe that inclusion/exclusion of Ruggie principles is totally outside of the scope of our task. In the public comments we have neither alternative text suggestion with Ruggie principles nor any support for such inclusion as a comment. As I already said, these discussions are taking us too far from the substance of the document and from the two options of bylaw language that were the subject of public comments. I think that for the sake of finalising the document (as one of our tasks), the reference to Ruggie principles shall be excluded from the text of proposed bylaw. Once it's done, the document is almost finalised. We can come back to these discussions later while working on other documents. If we will continue discussing Ruggie principles today (well, tonight here in Europe), there is no change to complete the task till Monday. We won't do it even till next Monday in this case I believe. PS. I assume there can be an argument that we added UDHR so why not adding Ruggie principles - but UDHR was suggested in public comments, so there is justification to consider such inclusion in the context of the task. Best regards Tatiana On 11/10/15 23:24, Greg Shatan wrote:

Let's go back to first principles for a moment. I think we are losing sight of our "assignment."

The primary purpose of this document is to provide a neutral synthesis and analysis of the public comments.

A possible secondary purpose of this document is to provide some guidance to the CCWG in considering the public comments and how (if at all) the CCWG Proposal should be revised in light of these comments.

This is not supposed to be a "think piece" independent of the public comments. I'm not saying that such a document is inappropriate. But it's not our assignment.

I think the topics under discussion at this point would be more appropriate for another document, and not for the analysis of comments. Indeed, the very idea that we could have a number of disagreements or open issues in an analysis of public comments provides a very significant clue that we have strayed from our task of neutral reportage. There should be few if any disagreements when it comes to accurately stating the results of the public comment period, and indeed, I think there are few if any disagreements with regard to that part of our document.

It's when we turn to "making news" instead of "reporting news" that we lose our way. I don't think these topics are out of place in WP4 or in the CCWG, but I think they are out of place in this document. I think they are more appropriate for the framework or rationale document that we need to produce, or for some other document that is the output of WP4 (but which is not the analysis of comments).

At this point, I would very strongly urge us to pare back this document and to move the WP's comments, discussions, etc. (except the very few that provide direct guidance to the CCWG in considering a particular comment or comments) into another document (or documents, if we want to get some pieces circulating more quickly into the CCWG, while we continue to work on other pieces).

Greg

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote:

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul

On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Paul

What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest.

This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.

I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments.

On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>

www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Hi, First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents. However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible framework for actually doing it. As I am suggesting they only be listed as guidance as a framework. otherwise it is just a bunch of references that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the applicability. But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am comfortable leaving this one out as well. Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG. I am fine with that as well. avri On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul

On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

...

Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

...

Paul

What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest.

This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.

I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments.

On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and

---

Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ok, so I am confused, i thought the document was both doing comment analysis and sending forward recommended bylaw text. while just comment analysis was the goal for the other groups, i did not think that was the only goal for this group. If this is just analysis with no forward looking suggestion of the text for bylaws, and indeed the Principles were not mentioned in the comments anywhere (oversight on my part) then you would win. But they are mentioned in the comments, if only in a comment by the business constituency against their inclusion. BTW, so are the disability rights. avri On 11-Oct-15 18:41, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Avri, I wouldn't mind to list anything (with the proper rationale, comments and discussions) as a possible option but not in the document we are working on now. The main point is that right now we are summarising public comments. This is the very and the only purpose of the current document - and there was no suggestion to include Ruggie principles in the public comments. Only on the poll - but the poll was created to address (several!) public comments suggesting the inclusion of UDHR. We are going far beyond the task we are supposed to perform without having even a tiny chance to reach an agreement on the issue, which is actually irrelevant for the current document. Unfortunately, we can't keep it absolutely simple and list none of the docs (after deleting Ruggie and whatever else), because UDHR was in the comments and this issue has to be addressed/solved somehow. I am strongly against the inclusion of UDHR as well, but as much as I dislike this proposal I have to be fair and agree that we have to include (in brackets) it because it was "agreed" on the call and it appeared in the comments. We can discuss/include Ruggie and whatever else on a later stage, no? We have more options to discuss this later. Actually, I stated this so many times already so I probably have to give in, stop spamming the mailing list and rather hear what other WP4 members say :) Cheers Tanya

On 12/10/15 00:11, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents.

However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible framework for actually doing it. As I am suggesting they only be listed as guidance as a framework. otherwise it is just a bunch of references that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the applicability.

But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am comfortable leaving this one out as well.

Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG. I am fine with that as well.

avri

On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul

On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

...

Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

...

Paul

What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest.

This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.

I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments.

On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and

---

Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

---

Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

+1 based on discussions on this list, I hope it's as obvious as we think. Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 06:35, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

Hi

This is stating the obvious I think: the analysis document is supposed to do two things - 1) summarize the public comment (including areas of refinement and divergence) as well as input from the LA meeting and 2) determine if there are additional options (beyond the proposal) for the CCWG to consider. In the case of 2) the obvious one is the result of comments on the two bylaws text options. If these results are inconclusive, the WP can propose an alternative but I believe it should still largely reflect comments and inputs received. If there is reference to the principles it should be noted in the analysis - as should the related discussion within the WP. But, it would be wrong to introduce options for the CCWG that do not reflect the thrust of inputs from the PC and other discussions.

Matthew

On 12/10/2015 06:11, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Ok, so I am confused, i thought the document was both doing comment analysis and sending forward recommended bylaw text. while just comment analysis was the goal for the other groups, i did not think that was the only goal for this group.

If this is just analysis with no forward looking suggestion of the text for bylaws, and indeed the Principles were not mentioned in the comments anywhere (oversight on my part) then you would win. But they are mentioned in the comments, if only in a comment by the business constituency against their inclusion. BTW, so are the disability rights.

avri

On 11-Oct-15 18:41, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

...

Avri, I wouldn't mind to list anything (with the proper rationale, comments and discussions) as a possible option but not in the document we are working on now. The main point is that right now we are summarising public comments. This is the very and the only purpose of the current document - and there was no suggestion to include Ruggie principles in the public comments. Only on the poll - but the poll was created to address (several!) public comments suggesting the inclusion of UDHR. We are going far beyond the task we are supposed to perform without having even a tiny chance to reach an agreement on the issue, which is actually irrelevant for the current document. Unfortunately, we can't keep it absolutely simple and list none of the docs (after deleting Ruggie and whatever else), because UDHR was in the comments and this issue has to be addressed/solved somehow. I am strongly against the inclusion of UDHR as well, but as much as I dislike this proposal I have to be fair and agree that we have to include (in brackets) it because it was "agreed" on the call and it appeared in the comments. We can discuss/include Ruggie and whatever else on a later stage, no? We have more options to discuss this later. Actually, I stated this so many times already so I probably have to give in, stop spamming the mailing list and rather hear what other WP4 members say :) Cheers Tanya

On 12/10/15 00:11, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents.

However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible framework for actually doing it. As I am suggesting they only be listed as guidance as a framework. otherwise it is just a bunch of references that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the applicability.

But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am comfortable leaving this one out as well.

Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG. I am fine with that as well.

avri

On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul

On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

...

Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

> Paul > > What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it > potentially liable in the way you suggest. > > This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue > here. > > I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable > human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN > liable under other instruments. > > On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote: > > ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and >> > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--

Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Paul, I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why don't we look at your subset? el On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul [...]

Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at" it usually involves scalpels :-)-O So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset? el On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset.

We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative complement subset.

N.

On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

...

Paul,

I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why don't we look at your subset?

el

On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

+1 to Greg By the way, the deadline is today, right? I can't edit the document because I am on holiday; have very limited time & access to Internet. Is there anyone who is going to make final edits? best, Tatiana On 12/10/15 16:57, Greg Shatan wrote:

I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human rights. I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:

Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at" it usually involves scalpels :-)-O

So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset?

el

On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote: > Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset. > > We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative > complement subset. > > > > N. > > > > > On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> Paul, >> >> I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why >> don't we look at your subset? >> >> el >> >> On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote: >>> Nigel >>> >>> I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below. >>> >>> My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the >>> Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR. >>> >>> Paul >> [...] >>

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Thanks Greg Well, when the deadline is approaching, so any edit can be a "final edit" :) (/Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes/, in a way) I think the text already looked ok last time I checked it after the changes proposed by Niels a couple of days ago, however, I think there is a bit of confusion at the end about the bracketed language proposed for consideration. There are two options with "bracketed language" in the last part (I think we need to be crystal clear concerning what is actually forwarded to the larger group - I assume, it's a short version) + I think there should be a bit of more details about the poll/results. May be I am mistaken and can't remember exact wording, but I can't access the document in a "normal way" from my mobile phone - can't add the comments, etc. so in fact I can't correct anything. I don't know what kind of edits you are going to make - if the issues I mentioned above won't be addressed, I can probably live with that... Again, thanks a lot. Best Tanya On 12/10/15 17:49, Greg Shatan wrote:

I hesitate to call it a "final edit" but I can propose some edits this afternoon, after lunch (NY time), and others can see how that looks.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de>> wrote:

+1 to Greg

By the way, the deadline is today, right? I can't edit the document because I am on holiday; have very limited time & access to Internet. Is there anyone who is going to make final edits?

best, Tatiana

On 12/10/15 16:57, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human rights. I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:

Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at" it usually involves scalpels :-)-O

So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset?

el

On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote: > Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset. > > We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative > complement subset. > > > > N. > > > > > On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> Paul, >> >> I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why >> don't we look at your subset? >> >> el >> >> On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote: >>> Nigel >>> >>> I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below. >>> >>> My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the >>> Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR. >>> >>> Paul >> [...] >>

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

I think it would be most clear to present four options as below, which is how I am interpreting the brackets. I think we could discuss the poll results and then say, based on the comments, the pool and our deliberations here are the 4 options we encourage be considered. I think the brackets are confusing. 1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law. 2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) , International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights, (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law [reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights, (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and implemented in accordance with and guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:57 PM To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina; Greg Shatan Cc: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation Made some comments in the doc. Meta level: the options for the CCWG should be only 3 or 4 - clearly proposed and reasoned. Right now the last part looks very complicated and confused. Much of it should probably go to the supporting doc. Matthew On 12/10/2015 18:13, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: Thanks Greg Well, when the deadline is approaching, so any edit can be a "final edit" :) (Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes, in a way) I think the text already looked ok last time I checked it after the changes proposed by Niels a couple of days ago, however, I think there is a bit of confusion at the end about the bracketed language proposed for consideration. There are two options with "bracketed language" in the last part (I think we need to be crystal clear concerning what is actually forwarded to the larger group - I assume, it's a short version) + I think there should be a bit of more details about the poll/results. May be I am mistaken and can't remember exact wording, but I can't access the document in a "normal way" from my mobile phone - can't add the comments, etc. so in fact I can't correct anything. I don't know what kind of edits you are going to make - if the issues I mentioned above won't be addressed, I can probably live with that... Again, thanks a lot. Best Tanya On 12/10/15 17:49, Greg Shatan wrote: I hesitate to call it a "final edit" but I can propose some edits this afternoon, after lunch (NY time), and others can see how that looks. Greg On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de>> wrote: +1 to Greg By the way, the deadline is today, right? I can't edit the document because I am on holiday; have very limited time & access to Internet. Is there anyone who is going to make final edits? best, Tatiana On 12/10/15 16:57, Greg Shatan wrote: I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human rights. I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well. Greg On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at" it usually involves scalpels :-)-O So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset? el On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset.

We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative complement subset.

N.

On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

...

Paul,

I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why don't we look at your subset?

el

On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 ________________________________ [Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Hello, Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase: "....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text." Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Okay so who decided to ignore the poll results? The WPs? I don't understand why you responded in such a manner, there was a poll that was made within this WP on the same subject and my understanding is that it is to determine what is to be recommended to CCWG. The question then is why are we still going ahead to recommend what we already have consensus within the WP not to recommend. If this is documented for due diligence purposes then it understandable and it will be good if you responded by clarifying and not just stating the obvious. Yes I may have missed some meetings where things were further discussed/updated and it will be fine if you just point to that and not just talk like the driver of this process! Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 21:11, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Seun,

Because the WPs are not decision making bodies.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

...

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Seun The CCWG as a whole needs to measure consensus of Members (not Participants) before anyone could claim consensus. This would exclude me, for example. It would also exclude noisy Bill Hugginses. On 12/10/15 21:21, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Okay so who decided to ignore the poll results? The WPs? I don't understand why you responded in such a manner, there was a poll that was made within this WP on the same subject and my understanding is that it is to determine what is to be recommended to CCWG.

The question then is why are we still going ahead to recommend what we already have consensus within the WP not to recommend.

If this is documented for due diligence purposes then it understandable and it will be good if you responded by clarifying and not just stating the obvious. Yes I may have missed some meetings where things were further discussed/updated and it will be fine if you just point to that and not just talk like the driver of this process!

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 21:11, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Seun,

Because the WPs are not decision making bodies.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

...

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 +1. I would suggest 'rough consensus'. Best, Niels On 10/12/2015 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

I think this is right, though after presenting the 4 variants, which i believe is a very good idea, we can indicate that WP4 had a strong preference for #1. Maybe even call it consensus, but I leave the suggestion of consensus to Leon.

avri

On 12-Oct-15 16:11, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Seun,

Because the WPs are not decision making bodies.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHB14AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpULwIAIraFHEtgy7q5fcVDMc3U3Pf 9g1PA3VW7V4PKrewzwXy7SuRyDPVdxbHlUNm6oXErofTI9AXLzwSVR/y5bbeEztx +JxYUVkh5v7T5VxhZzeAwzdTpaNnalu4XRnILH9HGvhQ6wssjXWFxkfmIOGrHW4Y DKLqz7r4yOoxjXy39L5N77qOAGqMkzape8wr8tIsXlPuplwg64u2WxbHBpcnEe0p LU3TdYa4gNsh+fGHDOE1VMqJuPwqHsjVHrISQzOQhML5GIO0jPGQ1IUxpnz/tXja X6sO+YsxIGMFeL+mSc4bXBLy8QTwJ8C4JNLKCNZv9yqLW+PnOkKOegHSBvAwEPU= =vaTI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

As Eberhard has pointed out, in the CCWG Charter the terms used for levels of consensus are "full consensus" and "consensus" (as in GNSO practice, for instance). In some other contexts (but not this one) these levels would instead be called "consensus" and "rough consensus." Greg On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:43 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

+1

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2015 22:52 An: wp4@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

+1. I would suggest 'rough consensus'.

Best,

Niels

On 10/12/2015 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

I think this is right, though after presenting the 4 variants, which i believe is a very good idea, we can indicate that WP4 had a strong preference for #1. Maybe even call it consensus, but I leave the suggestion of consensus to Leon.

avri

On 12-Oct-15 16:11, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Seun,

Because the WPs are not decision making bodies.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHB14AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpULwIAIraFHEtgy7q5fcVDMc3U3Pf 9g1PA3VW7V4PKrewzwXy7SuRyDPVdxbHlUNm6oXErofTI9AXLzwSVR/y5bbeEztx +JxYUVkh5v7T5VxhZzeAwzdTpaNnalu4XRnILH9HGvhQ6wssjXWFxkfmIOGrHW4Y DKLqz7r4yOoxjXy39L5N77qOAGqMkzape8wr8tIsXlPuplwg64u2WxbHBpcnEe0p LU3TdYa4gNsh+fGHDOE1VMqJuPwqHsjVHrISQzOQhML5GIO0jPGQ1IUxpnz/tXja X6sO+YsxIGMFeL+mSc4bXBLy8QTwJ8C4JNLKCNZv9yqLW+PnOkKOegHSBvAwEPU= =vaTI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Agree - "rough consensus" On 10/13/15 7:52 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Agree.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is right, though after presenting the 4 variants, which i believe is a very good idea, we can indicate that WP4 had a strong preference for #1. Maybe even call it consensus, but I leave the suggestion of consensus to Leon.

avri

On 12-Oct-15 16:11, Greg Shatan wrote: > Seun, > > Because the WPs are not decision making bodies. > > Greg > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Hello, > > Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to > 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase: > > "....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No > reference to a specific document should be included in the > suggested bylaw text." > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> > <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>> wrote: > > > I like this approach. > > The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as > follows. > > Here are the four alternatices. > > > 1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will > respect internationally recognized human rights. > > 2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will > respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > 3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will > respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International > Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the > International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. > > 4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will > respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International > Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the > International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights > and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding > Principles on Business and Human Rights. > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com

I have to ask - how much actual support did the last two options get? And what about highlighting the results for the 2 options in the proposal itself? Matthew On 12/10/2015 20:30, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

So if one were to draw an "option" for the CCWG to consider from the WP poll (Q1 where there was greatest Delta between yes and no) it would be a reference to human rights in the bylaws without any reference to a particular document. That seems to correlate largely with option 2 in the proposal which also had the greatest support: /Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights./ If so does that suggest that one could consider the WP poll an indicator of additional support for that option? (Although the words "internationally" and "fundamental" still cause me indigestion.) Matthew On 12/10/2015 22:52, Avri Doria wrote:

On 12-Oct-15 17:41, Matthew Shears wrote:

...

I have to ask - how much actual support did the last two options get?hi, According to the results listed by Leon:

...

Q1 Yes - 5 No - 18

Q2 Yes - 11 No - 12

Q3 None or NA - 13 Not Sure - 3

specific recommendations

2 for just Ruggie 2 for UDHR + Ruggie 6 for UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR

...

International bill of human rights , Regional and Domestic commitments to same. · my read is if one answers 1 and 2 with No then 3 is irrelevant. I note that some others have, however, put in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for 3 even though they have said no to 1 and 2.

that is be guided by the Guiding Principles on business and human rights · The UDHR is the only instrument that is of sufficient universality. · The UDHR is the only instrument that is of sufficient universality. · UDHR & UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights · UDHR & UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights · UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR · UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR · UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR · UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR · UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR · UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

...

And what about highlighting the results for the 2 options in the proposal itself?

Matthew

On 12/10/2015 20:30, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

...

Hello,

Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4 will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:

"....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

I like this approach.

The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.

Here are the four alternatices.

1. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights.

2. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4. Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 --

Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Nigel, nice pickup of the Newspeak watering it down to next to nothing. el On 2015-10-13 08:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:

I object to the inclusion of "will be committed to" as it waters down human rights.

"will respect" please.

On 12/10/15 23:10, Matthew Shears wrote:

...

So if one were to draw an "option" for the CCWG to consider from the WP poll (Q1 where there was greatest Delta between yes and no) it would be a reference to human rights in the bylaws without any reference to a particular document.

That seems to correlate largely with option 2 in the proposal which also had the greatest support:

/Within its mission and in it operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights./

If so does that suggest that one could consider the WP poll an indicator of additional support for that option? (Although the words "internationally" and "fundamental" still cause me indigestion.)

Matthew [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Dear All

From the very beginning I was not in favour of reference to ANY DOCUMENT.

The Group should not single out one from many valid sources. However, Under WSIS+10 multistakeholder Groups with 5 preparatory and one Final Meeting, it was agreed by consensus after hours and hours of discussions that at least two documents were referred to in the outcome of WSIS+10 which mentioned that The right of freedom of expression, as described in Article 19 of the UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…. There are other rights such as rights for free flow of information, rights for education, and ….. Consequently the second document referred to above is also required to be mentioned Regards Kavouss 2015-10-12 19:57 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org>:

Made some comments in the doc. Meta level: the options for the CCWG should be only 3 or 4 - clearly proposed and reasoned.

Right now the last part looks very complicated and confused. Much of it should probably go to the supporting doc.

Matthew

On 12/10/2015 18:13, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Thanks Greg Well, when the deadline is approaching, so any edit can be a "final edit" :) (*Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes*, in a way) I think the text already looked ok last time I checked it after the changes proposed by Niels a couple of days ago, however, I think there is a bit of confusion at the end about the bracketed language proposed for consideration. There are two options with "bracketed language" in the last part (I think we need to be crystal clear concerning what is actually forwarded to the larger group - I assume, it's a short version) + I think there should be a bit of more details about the poll/results. May be I am mistaken and can't remember exact wording, but I can't access the document in a "normal way" from my mobile phone - can't add the comments, etc. so in fact I can't correct anything. I don't know what kind of edits you are going to make - if the issues I mentioned above won't be addressed, I can probably live with that... Again, thanks a lot. Best Tanya

On 12/10/15 17:49, Greg Shatan wrote:

I hesitate to call it a "final edit" but I can propose some edits this afternoon, after lunch (NY time), and others can see how that looks.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> wrote:

...

+1 to Greg

By the way, the deadline is today, right? I can't edit the document because I am on holiday; have very limited time & access to Internet. Is there anyone who is going to make final edits?

best, Tatiana

On 12/10/15 16:57, Greg Shatan wrote:

I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human rights. I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

...

Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at" it usually involves scalpels :-)-O

So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset?

el

On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote:

...

Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset.

We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative complement subset.

N.

On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

...

Paul,

I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why don't we look at your subset?

el

On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing listWp4@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing listWp4@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

--

Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987

------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

Hi Paul, hi all, I already wrote a warning in the comments to a Google doc about a strong opposition against commitment to the UN Guiding principles in the bylaw + stated my reasons (on the mailing list and in the comments to the Doc) why I am against referring to the Ruggie principles in the bylaw language. I am repeating myself, but again: I suggest to exclude the Principles from bracketed text (with possible explanation in the text about the poll + comments to the poll about Principles). Otherwise, if the Ruggie Principles stay in the bylaw text proposal, I believe it is necessary to provide an overview of the group discussion, including Paul's warning, Business constituency public comment against such inclusion and other comments, like the one I wrote about the fact that Principles are, in my opinion, are not international human rights law instrument. I hope those who are supporting the inclusion of the Principles into the bylaw language can provide their detailed comments, too. Right now, there is no explanation/justification in the Google doc concerning support for the inclusion of the UN Principles except the rationale "Principles appeared in the poll" - I personally don't think it's enough to add them into the proposed bylaw language. Especially because we have WP members and public comments strongly opposing such inclusion. Well, this is just my opinion. I don't think I have a personal capacity to exclude anything from the Google doc without agreement between WP4 members. Best regards Tatiana On 11/10/15 20:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

Tatiana

Would you also include my constant warning (including in the poll) about the UN Guiding Principles (especially article 13) running the risk of ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and other related parities under instructions of authoritarian governments' policies?

Best

Paul

On 10/12/15 3:56 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

...

+ 1 to supporting option (a) from me. I would go for the minimal bylaw text (ok, with /legal/ instruments in brackets if necessary). I certainly do not support the inclusion of the UN Guiding Principles in the proposed bylaw text even in brackets. We are summarising public comments, and (if I remember correctly) the only opinion there about guiding principles in the statement from Business Constituency that it doesn't support such a reference. Furthermore, even if we are going to include international human rights law instruments, UN Guiding principles won't be the case because they are neither treaty nor declaration. I doubt they can be characterized as "international human rights law". Last but not least, if we make such inclusion it's getting us too far from the second option of proposed bylaw text, which was supported in the public comments (7 of 23). I would rather suggest to add a paragraph about the poll results and say there that some of the WP4 member who answered the poll suggested to include the UN Guiding principles into the bylaw. We can discuss this issue further when we will be writing explanatory document to the bylaw text.

Best regards Tatiana

On 11/10/15 16:52, Avri Doria wrote:

...

a. do we send just the agreed upon minimal bylaws text? b. or do we also send all the bracketed text?

While I have been somewhat ambivalent on this issue, I think there is more support in both the WP and the larger group for minimal text in the bylaw. I would support option a.

avri

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4