- Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Proposed topic call January 31 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you well. I would like to propose for our meeting tomorrow to discuss the response by the co-chair to our question. This has already been discussed on the list, and it will probably also be discussed in the plenary next week, but I thought it would probably be good to also discuss it in our meeting. Several people have already posted quite elaborate opinions on the mailinglist, I will probably call on them to summarize their position and suggested way forward as a discussion starter, of course others are invited to prepare a plea as well. I'm greatly looking forward to our call tomorrow. 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

4 3

Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Greg Shatan Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Matthew, Thanks for your response, and I'm glad to see we are converging in our thinking. I'm replying primarily to redirect this to the Human Rights mailing list -- you replied to the one I sent in error to the Jurisdiction list. Clearly a Freudian slip on my part. Greg On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:49 PM, matthew shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: > Hi Greg - yes, see inline > On 27/01/2017 19:42, Greg Shatan wrote: > > I tend to agree for the most part with Tatiana. > > We have been asked to "confirm that [the Human Rights subgroup] it has > completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12." This can't be a > rubber stamp. We need to satisfy ourselves that this FoI really reflects > *how* and *that *we have considered each of the following: > > · Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other > instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and > implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. > > · Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs > to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human > Rights. > > · Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, > consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure > broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. > > · Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s > consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). > > · Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s > operations are carried out. > > · Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this > Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. > > I agree we need to have this discussion. > > > Do we want "consider" to be synonymous with "duly take into account" which > can be satisfied by reviewing and considering an element (say, a public > comment) and then deciding that nothing will be as a result of that > review? At the very least, we need to make sure we did the "review and > consider" part. If no changes need to be made in the FoI on a given point, > then we should be able to say why we came to that conclusion. > > Agree. As I suggested in my e-mail. > > > *We need to have a substantial discussion to determine whether the FoI > reflects that we have considered each of these elements, and reflects the > outcome of that consideration.* > > *Until we do this, I strongly question whether the Framework of > Interpretation document is ready for Public Comment.* If we decided that > separate documents/annexes/etc. were needed, then perhaps this could be put > out for comment. But I question that as well. Those really are parts of > the FoI package, and would also need to be put out for Public Comment > before the Bylaw graduates from "dormant" status. Wouldn't it be better to > have the whole package out there at once? As an alternative, we could put > the FoI out for a second set of comments while putting the added pieces out > for first comments (and possibly only comments). > > Preferably one time - anything else will be confusing. > > > Also, the determination of the Co-Chairs was that we follow Annex 12, > rather than Annex 6. Annex 12 calls for a single integrated document > reflecting all considerations. Annex 6 calls for follow-on documents. > Since we are going with Annex 12 any additional material needed to reflect > our "consideration" *must be in the FoI itself.* > > If it is appropriately considered and necessary, yes. > > > One last point. I think that the open-ended invitation to " > develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI > " > goes beyond our mandate. The only implementation advice we should be > giving would be as a result of "considering" the 6 bullet points above. One > could say there is an express or implied element of implementation (or more > accuerately "implementation guidance," which is not quite the same thing) > in each of these bullet points. > > Some of those bullets are clearly related to implementation - which is, > while important to consider for the FoI, beyond our mandate. Now, if we > wished to go down that route that would be separate to the FoI. > > A textual analysis of the Bylaw, no matter how excellent it is, does not > satisfy any of these points. And going beyond these points into an > unfettered discussion of suggestions for Implementation would be going too > far. > > A delicate balance for sure, but one we can address. > > Matthew > > > So, I'm sorry to say, we're not there yet. > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks, do find inline: >> >> On Jan 26, 2017 2:11 PM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" < >> leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that >> the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the >> Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 >> Recommendations. >> >> >> SO: Exact question that I have been asking as well, which also implies >> that it's not helpful to put the draft FoI to public comment without >> getting clear response on the point above! >> >> >> >> Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN >> implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be >> amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such >> suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there >> was no objection from the plenary. >> >> >> SO: May I ask the Co-Chairs to clarify what part of the WS1 report >> mandates the HR subgroup to carry out the task above or is this WS2 >> assigning a new task to the subgroup?. Like I have said, it seem to me that >> all HR needed to produce was the FoI and they just need to confirm if the >> draft they sent was done is consideration of Annex 12 period! >> >> Regards >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Thomas, Mathieu and León >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > >

3 2

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 29, 2017

Jan. 29, 2017

Find below - In response to Greg's suggestion. Even though I do think it might be more relevant within the plenary. Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 27, 2017 19:15, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, do find inline: > > On Jan 26, 2017 2:11 PM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" < > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the > Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human > Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. > > > SO: Exact question that I have been asking as well, which also implies > that it's not helpful to put the draft FoI to public comment without > getting clear response on the point above! > > > > Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN > implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be > amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such > suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there > was no objection from the plenary. > > > SO: May I ask the Co-Chairs to clarify what part of the WS1 report > mandates the HR subgroup to carry out the task above or is this WS2 > assigning a new task to the subgroup?. Like I have said, it seem to me that > all HR needed to produce was the FoI and they just need to confirm if the > draft they sent was done is consideration of Annex 12 period! > > Regards > > > Best regards, > > > Thomas, Mathieu and León > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Greg Shatan Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

All, I tend to agree for the most part with Tatiana. We have been asked to "confirm that [the Human Rights subgroup] it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12." This can't be a rubber stamp. We need to satisfy ourselves that this FoI really reflects *how* and *that *we have considered each of the following: · Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. · Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. · Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. · Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). · Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. · Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Do we want "consider" to be synonymous with "duly take into account" which can be satisfied by reviewing and considering an element (say, a public comment) and then deciding that nothing will be as a result of that review? At the very least, we need to make sure we did the "review and consider" part. If no changes need to be made in the FoI on a given point, then we should be able to say why we came to that conclusion. *We need to have a substantial discussion to determine whether the FoI reflects that we have considered each of these elements, and reflects the outcome of that consideration.* *Until we do this, I strongly question whether the Framework of Interpretation document is ready for Public Comment.* If we decided that separate documents/annexes/etc. were needed, then perhaps this could be put out for comment. But I question that as well. Those really are parts of the FoI package, and would also need to be put out for Public Comment before the Bylaw graduates from "dormant" status. Wouldn't it be better to have the whole package out there at once? As an alternative, we could put the FoI out for a second set of comments while putting the added pieces out for first comments (and possibly only comments). Also, the determination of the Co-Chairs was that we follow Annex 12, rather than Annex 6. Annex 12 calls for a single integrated document reflecting all considerations. Annex 6 calls for follow-on documents. Since we are going with Annex 12 any additional material needed to reflect our "consideration" *must be in the FoI itself.* One last point. I think that the open-ended invitation to " develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI " goes beyond our mandate. The only implementation advice we should be giving would be as a result of "considering" the 6 bullet points above. One could say there is an express or implied element of implementation (or more accuerately "implementation guidance," which is not quite the same thing) in each of these bullet points. A textual analysis of the Bylaw, no matter how excellent it is, does not satisfy any of these points. And going beyond these points into an unfettered discussion of suggestions for Implementation would be going too far. So, I'm sorry to say, we're not there yet. Greg On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, do find inline: > > On Jan 26, 2017 2:11 PM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" < > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the > Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human > Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. > > > SO: Exact question that I have been asking as well, which also implies > that it's not helpful to put the draft FoI to public comment without > getting clear response on the point above! > > > > Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN > implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be > amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such > suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there > was no objection from the plenary. > > > SO: May I ask the Co-Chairs to clarify what part of the WS1 report > mandates the HR subgroup to carry out the task above or is this WS2 > assigning a new task to the subgroup?. Like I have said, it seem to me that > all HR needed to produce was the FoI and they just need to confirm if the > draft they sent was done is consideration of Annex 12 period! > > Regards > > > Best regards, > > > Thomas, Mathieu and León > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

3 3

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

Dear all, Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is. All the best, Niels -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Dear all, The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2. The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also. The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced. Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary. Best regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León

5 6

Proposed Cancellation Subgroup call Tuesday Jan 17
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

Dear all, I am put at a bit of a hard cross-road; I would love to continue our work, but we're waiting for advice from the CCWG co-chairs on our question to the plenary on how to proceed our work. Since we did not receive a (preliminary) answer from the co-chairs or the plenary I think we can do nothing but wait. Therefore I propose we cancel this evenings call and wait until we hear more from the co-chairs. If you have any other suggestion that would of course also be very welcome. 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

7 11

[offtopic] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 18, 2017

Jan. 18, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the ARTICLE 19, the Council of Europe, and the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights I am very happy to invite you to a ** webinar on Community top-level domains (TLDs) and human rights ** * January 18 - 15:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ * In this webinar we will present and discuss the main findings from the Council of Europe report on Community Based gTLDs and Human Rights [0] with: Facilitators: Niels ten Oever Head of Digital at Article 19 Chair of the CCWP HR Rapporteur for CCWG WS2 Human Rights sub-team Patrick Penninckx Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe Key findings: Eve Salomon, Co-Author of the report International consultant and legal expert on media law and human rights Kinanya Pijl Co-Author of the report PhD Candidate, European University, Florence Discussants: Mark Carvell GAC Vice-Chair Co-Chair GAC WG on Human Rights and International Law Chris Disspain ICANN Board Member Jamie Baxter Dotgay LLC Cherine Chalaby ICANN Board Member Avri Dora Internet Researcher Co-Chair Subsequent gTLD procedures WG We're greatly looking forward to your participation. Feel free to share this invitation widely among your constituencies and communities. All the best, Niels ten Oever [0] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/Report%20on%20Com… Please find the AC room and dial in details here: Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CCWP HR For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-466 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 PS Sorry for cross-posting -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

2 3

Update from yesterday's plenary meeting
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear all, A short update from yesterday's plenary: 1. The FoI had its second reading and ICANN staff is now preparing it for a public comment period. Congratulations to all on this success. 2. The CCWG co-chairs have taken our question to the plenary into consideration and will come with an advice as soon as possible. I hope we will receive the CCWG co-chairs' advice before our meeting on Tuesday so we can discuss it there. All the best, Niels

2 1

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170111 Slide deck for meeting
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Dear Niels, Pls be advised that you and the co-chairs were informed of a footnote to be added whenever, the term" Applicable Law "appears I sent you the text of the footnote. I expected a reply which has never came. Pls kindly be so kind and introduce the suggestions. kAVOUSS 2017-01-11 19:17 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net>: > Dear all, > > For the discussion under agenda point 3, subssection 'Presentation from > Human Rights sub-group', I am linking here for your convenience the > links to the Framework of Interpretation (as shared with the plenary on > December 4 [0]): > > PDF: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/ > 20161204/fbddeb37/ProposedFoI-HRforCCWG-0001.pdf > > docx: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/ > 20161204/fbddeb37/ProposedFoI-HRforCCWG-0001.docx > > and the link to the (corrected) email with our questions to the CCW > plenary, which was sent on January 7: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- > community/2017-January/013593.html > > Looking forward to discuss this in a bit with you all. > > Best, > > Niels > > > > [0] > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- > community/2016-December/013435.html > > On 01/11/2017 04:03 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Please find attached the slide deck we will be using for the plenary > > meeting today 1900 UTC. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

2 2

Proposed Cancellation Subgroup Meeting Thursday January 12th
by Niels ten Oever Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Dear all, A happy new year to you all. Wednesday will be an important plenary call for our subgroup. We will be most probably be doing a second reading of our Framework of Interpretation as well as discussing our scope and mandate for our subgroups future work with the CCWG plenary. So, Wedneday we'll have the plenary call, but we also have a subgroup meeting planned for Thursday. This leave us with less than 24 hours to analyze and think through our discussion with the CCWG plenary and ponder on next steps. In my opinion this is a bit hasty, especially since our follow-up discussion will already be on Tuesday January 17th. Looking at our planning and at the other subgroups I think we can take a bit more time and not be too hurried. Therefore I would like to propose to cancel our subgroup meeting on January 12, so we meet again with the subgroup on Tuesday January 17th at 19:00. I hope you all can agree. 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

5 4