April 2017 - Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Rudolph Daniel April 16, 2017

April 16, 2017

Greg, Your comments and a second read, I would have to withdraw. They are indeed different things as you rightly point out. rd On Apr 16, 2017 12:41 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Rudy, That's not really what's happening here. First, the Board is proposing an assessment of the impact of the Human Rights Bylaw, not a "human rights impact assessment." Two completely different things. This could just as easily be an assessment of the impact of changing ICANN's fiscal year. So, I think you are mixing up impact assessments here. Second, there is no "principle of WSG2 HR's framework of HRIA." I'm not exactly sure what "WSG2 HR" means, but if it refers to the subgroup, the subgroup document only states "Supporting Organizations could consider defining and incorporating Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) in their respective policy development processes." That is neither a "framework of HRIA" nor is it a "principle." Even if it were, it would obviously be inappropriate and premature for the Board to "accept" anything that had only been considered at the subgroup level and did not have the approval of the full CCWG. As such there is nothing to "work across the ICANN eco stystem." To the extent the question is how could HRIAs "work across the ICANN eco system," I would say the answer is in our considerations document, which leaves the possibility of any application of HRIAs to policy development in the hands of the ICANN structures tasked with managing policy development -- the Supporting Organizations (see quote above). Presumably, the same principle of bottom-up consideration would apply to the ACs as well -- but all of this is really a question beyond the remit of the Subgroup or the CCWG. Best regards, Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stepping back, In my thinking, it is a great step forward for the icann > board to accept the principle of WSG2 HR 's framework of HRIA. so how is it > going to work across the ICANN eco system? > rd > > On Apr 13, 2017 6:57 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > >> Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning >> staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of >> the FOI - HR. >> >> >> >> Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR >> impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and >> the availability of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review >> Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal >> mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR >> Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below). >> >> >> >> One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community >> challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community >> Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section >> 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex >> D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and >> IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be >> conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on >> different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be >> involved in this analysis. >> >> >> >> So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human >> Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically >> will have adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in >> relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost >> and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”): >> >> >> >> http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940- >> 1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf >> >> >> >> [image: cid:image003.png@01D2B466.72809920] >> >> >> >> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com >> >> _____________________________ >> >> [image: cid:image002.png@01D2B46E.80B36B50] >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com >> >> >> >> *From:* McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM >> *To:* gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com; seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com >> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr(a)icann.org; >> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights >> >> >> >> [Part of string deleted to make shorter] >> >> >> >> This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice >> to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the >> “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> >> >> David McAuley >> >> International Policy Manager >> >> Verisign Inc. >> >> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154> >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> < >> ws2-hr(a)icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; >> accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights >> >> >> >> I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying: >> >> >> >> The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., >> the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in >> WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and >> to further inform the development of additional implementation >> recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop >> additional implementation recommendations]*. >> >> >> >> As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking >> ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to >> understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the >> organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these >> implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., >> this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be >> implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to >> assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of >> information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the >> rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their >> deliberations of the final recommendations. >> >> >> >> In other words: >> >> >> >> - The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. >> - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation >> recommendations to accompany the FoI >> - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations. >> >> >> - As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment. >> >> >> - CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) >> how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is >> expected to impact. >> - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff, >> >> >> - Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment. >> >> >> - CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire >> ICANN community. >> >> >> - Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as >> the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into >> account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations. >> >> >> - Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on >> examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the >> public comment on the initial recommendations. >> >> Does that make sense? >> >> >> >> (With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG >> Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its >> proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed >> description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of >> resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each >> Work Stream*." (emphasis added)) >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> - >> >> >> >> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> >> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this >> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or >> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended >> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by >> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-hr mailing list >> Ws2-hr(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr >> >>

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Seun Ojedeji April 16, 2017

April 16, 2017

That's right, I wanted to know what/who Board meant when they mention "ICANN organisation" I thought it was staff as it made sense to me if such impact assessment were formerly conducted by staff to better inform the Board and the community on implementation implications However based on Niel's message it seem it's referring to the community which is all clear now. Regards On Apr 13, 2017 19:40, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > This seems reasonable. Seun had noted he thought the Board letter > indicated they were asking staff to do something. Seun observed that when > the Board says “ICANN organization”, it means staff. > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* > > Of Counsel > > 520.629.4428 office > > 520.879.4725 fax > > AAikman(a)lrrc.com > > _____________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > lrrc.com > > > > *From:* ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:06 AM > *To:* McAuley, David > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; ws2-hr(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights > > > > I agree with Niels and David. > > > > Greg > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:58 AM, McAuley, David via Ws2-hr < > ws2-hr(a)icann.org> wrote: > > This seems like a good approach Niels, thank you. > > Best regards, > David > > David McAuley > International Policy Manager > Verisign Inc. > 703-948-4154 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Niels ten Oever > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:52 AM > To: Remmy Nweke <remmyn(a)gmail.com> > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights > > Dear all, > > A board member confirmed to me that the Considerations document was not > considered when this letter was composed and that the Public Comment period > is probably the best moment for the board to give input this. > > I would propose that the CCWG co-chairs and I will respond with a letter > to the board that it seems we have addressed most issues with the FoI and > Considerations document and that we would like to invite the board to > continue to provide input via discussions in the plenary, the subgroup and > during the upcoming public comments period for this document. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 04/13/2017 12:06 AM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > > Definitely this letter is not for this group. > > > > Like Niels noted, we may wait until the public comment to get more > > information from the Board on this and remain focused on the current > > assignment. > > > > Regards > > Remmy > > > > ____ > > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, > > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media > > [/Multiple-award winning medium/] (DigitalSENSE Business News > > <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS > > <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet > > <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin > > Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms > > <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> > > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎> > > PC Summit 2017 <http://www.pcsummit.com.ng>, December 7-8 @Federal > > Palace, Victoria Island, Lagos. > > > > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society > > (ACSIS > > <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>) > > _________________________________________________________________ > > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and > > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. > > It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke > > does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. > > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, > > then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this > > document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face > > court persecution. > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Niels ten Oever > > <lists(a)nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I am forwarding you a letter that I and the CCWG co-chairs received > from > > the board, please find it attached. > > > > It seems like this letter was composed before the Considerations > > document was finalized, therefore I think it would be apt that we > > continue with our readings and ask the board to provide us with their > > analysis during the Public Comments period. > > > > All the best, > > > > Niels > > > > -- > > Niels ten Oever > > Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 > > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-hr mailing list > > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> > > > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 ______________________________ > _________________ > > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > > > ------------------------------ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > >

8 9

Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Niels ten Oever April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, A board member confirmed to me that the Considerations document was not considered when this letter was composed and that the Public Comment period is probably the best moment for the board to give input this. I would propose that the CCWG co-chairs and I will respond with a letter to the board that it seems we have addressed most issues with the FoI and Considerations document and that we would like to invite the board to continue to provide input via discussions in the plenary, the subgroup and during the upcoming public comments period for this document. Best, Niels On 04/13/2017 12:06 AM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Definitely this letter is not for this group. > > Like Niels noted, we may wait until the public comment to get more > information from the Board on this and remain focused on the current > assignment. > > Regards > Remmy > > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [/Multiple-award winning medium/] > (DigitalSENSE Business News > <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS > <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>) > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms > <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎> > PC Summit 2017 <http://www.pcsummit.com.ng>, December 7-8 @Federal > Palace, Victoria Island, Lagos. > > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS > <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>) > _________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It > is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does > not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you > are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then > delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document > to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court > persecution. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Niels ten Oever > <lists(a)nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am forwarding you a letter that I and the CCWG co-chairs received from > the board, please find it attached. > > It seems like this letter was composed before the Considerations > document was finalized, therefore I think it would be apt that we > continue with our readings and ask the board to provide us with their > analysis during the Public Comments period. > > All the best, > > Niels > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> > > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

4 3

Letter from the Board on Human Rights
by Niels ten Oever April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, I am forwarding you a letter that I and the CCWG co-chairs received from the board, please find it attached. It seems like this letter was composed before the Considerations document was finalized, therefore I think it would be apt that we continue with our readings and ask the board to provide us with their analysis during the Public Comments period. All the best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

6 6

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting # 25 | 4 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Hello all, Please see the notes, recordings, and transcript for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #25 here; https://community.icann.org/x/4bnRAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2AE06.39841540] Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 12 participants at start of call. 1. Administrivia-Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Niels ten Oever - No changes to SOIs. 2. Second Reading (of two) of the Considerations document Niels ten Oever – (going through the Google doc - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8… ) Niels ten Oever: (typo correction) A particular Human Right should not be considered in isolation since Human Rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Kavouss Arasteh - Uncertain we should use METHOD applies - there is no METHOD. Delete METHODS FOR use THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY NEW.... Niels ten Oever: The development of any new policies or frameworks that may be needed to apply the Human Rights Core Value will be dictated by the type of policy and how ICANN the organization and the community develop those policies. Andrew Mack: sounds good to me as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): fine by me also David McAuley (RySG) 2: fine here Kavouss Arasteh - PROPOSES to whom? suggest remove PROPOSE and use DEVELOP. Niels ten Oever: In order to do so ICANN the organization should develop a framework, which should include multistakeholder involvement, and regular review. David McAuley (RySG) 2: propose includes the community more clearly doesn't it Andrew Mack - PROPOSES TO THE COMMUNITY BROADLY. Kavouss Arasteh - that works. Niels ten Oever: In order to do so ICANN the organization should propose a framework to the community, which should include multistakeholder involvement in its development, and regular review. David McAuley (RySG) 2: sounds good Kavouss Arasteh - always have had problem with the last para. Not 100% satisfied but accept as the best we can get. David McAuley (RySG) 2: Nice comment Kavouss, I also think this last para is good Niels ten Oever - this completes our second reading. Unless there are objections I will merge this with the FOI and submit to the plenary for first reading. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): excellent Andrew Mack: double dip Markus Kummer: Well done, all! Niels ten Oever: fulll consensus of the subgroup, congratulations everyone Kavouss Arasteh - We need to avoid modifications in plenary - this was hard won consensus here and any changes proposed in the plenary need to be brought back to this group and would suggest we make this clear in the plenary. Niels ten Oever - agree - we will have to defend these documents in plenary. 3. AOB Kavouss Arasteh - Great thanks to our rapporteur and members of the drafting team, as well as the secretariat. Andrew Mack: here here David McAuley (RySG) 2: Agree with Kavouss Niels ten Oever: Fully agree Markus Kummer: +1 Kavouss - well said! Andrew Mack: well led Niels Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good job so far people... important work... now needs to go to the next steps with Plenary and Pc Niels ten Oever - lets not forget its not then end - if we get through the plenary we then go to public comment. Adjourned.

1 0

Proposed Agenda SECOND READING considerations document April 4 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached and underneath the proposed agenda for our session tomorrow April 4 at 19:00 UTC. The document we'll discuss is the document we've jointly edited during our session last week, no changes have been made since, and no text proposals have been shared on the list. You can find the document attached (PDF and docx). The document can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDYyuXacrSYDtlSK5JqNQe7XOX2LbM86AzfDay8… 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Second Reading (of two) of the Considerations document 3. AOB Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. All the 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

6 8