- Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
by Niels ten Oever Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below. I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think. Best, Niels On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the > following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable > outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, > and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public > comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the > Subgroup. > > > > Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on > page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded > as follows (changes in red): > > > > “/By committing to one or more of these international instruments, > nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national > legislation*. */ > > */The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are > relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is > concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding > Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when > applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“* > > > > The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are > the universally accepted voluntary standard for business > organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under > the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. > In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business > elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP > would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the > mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful > guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of > creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention. > > > > I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by > all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of > arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to > coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining > the dissent. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jorge > > > > > > *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag > von *Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 > *An:* turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September > Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 > > > > Dear all, > > > > Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion* > attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of > Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the > attached document), which I have filed together with a number of > colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path > forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this. > > > > The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the > public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: > some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” > (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO > constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps > forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles > (Ruggie Principles). > > > > However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not > yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least > some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named > Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should > make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most > relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup > did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a > compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this > position of the three governments. > > > > Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide > that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this > important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be > more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period. > > > > Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together > with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a > broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 > weeks after the Plenary call_. > > > > I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your > support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any > questions you may have and look forward to your feedback. > > > > For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m > (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue > could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Jorge > > > > > > *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag > von *Bernard Turcotte > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 > *An:* Accountability Cross Community > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September > Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 > > > > All, > > > > Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary. > > > > As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary > can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session > and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing > constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary > session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary > meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands). > > > > Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be > including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for > participants. > > > > Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or > problems with the documents. > > > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 > > > > *Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September* > > * * > > 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior > > 2. Review of Agenda > > 3. Administration > > 3.1.Review timeline. > > 3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi. > > 3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi > > 4. Legal Committee Update > > 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation > 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel > (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). > > 4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group > updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. > ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written > feedback to the sub-group. > > 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary) > > 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity > sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 > (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary) > > 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC > Accountability sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 > (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 > (attached) > > 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights > sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 > (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses > (attached) > > 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds > sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is > provided as a separate file due to size issues) > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 > (attached in second email) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached > in second email) > > 10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff > Accountability sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 > (attached in second email) > o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 > (attached in second email) > > 11.AOB > > 12.Next Plenaries > > 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC > > 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please > schedule) > > 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please > schedule) > > 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC > > 13.Adjournment > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 3

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
by avri doria Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

(sent a reply list unfortunately and it went to the wrong list) Hi, I do not see the problem with including a statement such as this. Perhaps I would indicate that it was a not for profit business instead of a business and would insert an "as appropriate" after "as a useful guide". But I think mentioning this among the international instruments is a good idea. avri On 28-Sep-17 08:21, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the > following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable > outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, > and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public > comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the > Subgroup. > > > > Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on > page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded > as follows (changes in red): > > > > “/By committing to one or more of these international instruments, > nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national > legislation*. */ > > */The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are > relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is > concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding > Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when > applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“* > > > > The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are > the universally accepted voluntary standard for business > organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under > the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. > In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business > elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP > would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the > mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful > guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of > creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention. > > > > I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by > all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of > arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to > coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining > the dissent. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jorge > > > > > > *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag > von *Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 > *An:* turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September > Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 > > > > Dear all, > > > > Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion* > attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of > Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the > attached document), which I have filed together with a number of > colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path > forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this. > > > > The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the > public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: > some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” > (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO > constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps > forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles > (Ruggie Principles). > > > > However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not > yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least > some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named > Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should > make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most > relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup > did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a > compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this > position of the three governments. > > > > Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide > that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this > important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be > more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period. > > > > Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together > with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a > broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 > weeks after the Plenary call_. > > > > I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your > support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any > questions you may have and look forward to your feedback. > > > > For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m > (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue > could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Jorge > > > > > > *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag > von *Bernard Turcotte > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 > *An:* Accountability Cross Community > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September > Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 > > > > All, > > > > Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary. > > > > As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary > can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session > and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing > constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary > session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary > meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands). > > > > Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be > including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for > participants. > > > > Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or > problems with the documents. > > > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 > > > > *Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September* > > * * > > 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior > > 2. Review of Agenda > > 3. Administration > > 3.1.Review timeline. > > 3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi. > > 3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi > > 4. Legal Committee Update > > 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation > 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel > (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). > > 4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group > updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. > ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written > feedback to the sub-group. > > 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary) > > 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity > sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 > (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary) > > 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC > Accountability sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 > (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 > (attached) > > 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights > sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 > (attached) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses > (attached) > > 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds > sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is > provided as a separate file due to size issues) > > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 > (attached in second email) > o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached > in second email) > > 10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff > Accountability sub-group. > > o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 > (attached in second email) > o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 > (attached in second email) > > 11.AOB > > 12.Next Plenaries > > 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC > > 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please > schedule) > > 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please > schedule) > > 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC > > 13.Adjournment > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

WG: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

For your information Kind regards Jorge Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Montag, 18. September 2017 11:45 An: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>; 'Jordan Carter' <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Cc: 'Niels ten Oever' <lists(a)nielstenoever.net>; 'Bernard Turcotte' <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>; 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; 'Mark Carvell' <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk>; 'María Milagros Castañon Seoane' <mcastanon(a)rree.gob.pe>; 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira' <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br> Betreff: AW: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG Dear co-chairs and all, I note with appreciation the constructive and forward-looking Email Thomas Rickert sent on your behalf last week on the constitution of “drafting teams”. In order to allow for an as constructive as possible discussion on the CCWG Plenary on September 27, I would like to file with you the following amended version of our dissent, which tries to focus only on the substantive issues that hopefully may be bridged during our discussions in the CCWG Plenary: "This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group). Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issueswhich they raised. In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.” Hope this may be helpful. Kind regards Jorge Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. September 2017 08:35 An: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>>; María Milagros Castañon Seoane <mcastanon(a)rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> Betreff: AW: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG Dear Co-Chairs and all, For your convenience, here is the clean text version of the dissent we would like to be submitted to the Plenary for its consideration: "This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group). Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issueswhich they raised. In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as in our view there was not an appropriate communication and outreach on its constitution, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team. This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.” Thanks again and regards Jorge Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. September 2017 07:03 An: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>>; María Milagros Castañon Seoane <mcastanon(a)rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> Betreff: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG Dear Co-Chairs please find below for your convenience and in order to avoid any misunderstandings on the final text, the final version of the dissenting opinion we have filed for Plenary. Kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 5. September 2017 um 12:33:00 MESZ An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>, ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>, lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> <lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> Betreff: AW: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary Thanks to Greg for this thorough investigation to the origins of the „drafting team“. Apparently only the transcript of the call on August 8th provides some clarity on how the drafting team was constituted, as the agenda, the notes of the call, and the subsequent emails did not contain an open call for participating in such a drafting team. Nonetheless, and recognizing that at least in the call itself there was such a call for forming the drafting team, I would like to slightly amend the dissenting opinion as follows: == "This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group). Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issueswhich they raised. In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as in our view there was not an appropriate communication and outreach on its constitutionopen invitation to participate in the drafting team, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team. This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.” == Kind regards Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. September 2017 08:21 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>; thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary All, I think it would be helpful to review the course of events under discussion here and in the minority statement. I've taken the time to comb through the email list and the relevant meeting transcripts, and as far as I can determine, this is what took place. I'll provide this without further comment, but I hope it is useful to all members of the Subgroup. 1. Niels made a request for volunteers to join a drafting team on the August 8, 2017 Working Group call. Attendance records show that Kavouss Arasteh and Mark Carvell were on the call (the latter as an Observer). Three people on the call (David Macauley, myself and Tatiana Tropina) volunteered for the drafting team. Anne also apparently volunteered, but this was not noted in the call notes; this was subsequently clarified. 2. Almost directly after the call (or possibly even during the end of the call), Niels sent to the subgroup list an email with two versions of the paragraph in question ("Original text" and "Text proposed by me on the call"), and said "I am greatly looking forward to the suggestion of the drafting team." 3. Matthew Shears replied to that thread a couple of hours later and volunteered to be on the drafting team. Rudy Daniel, Anne Aikman-Scalese and Kavouss Arasteh also replied to that thread, with contributions. Rudy also sent a follow-on email with further observations; David responded to this. 4. Within a few hours after that, MSSI Secretariat sent an email to both the CCWG and ws2-hr lists with Action Items and raw captioning from the August 8 meeting. The second Action Item from the meeting was: * DM, GS, TT volunteer for drafting team for the two elements of text which were discussed on the call this week for consideration at the next meeting. 5. The next day, David sent another email on the topic, again to the full subgroup list. Kavouss, Anne and Steve DelBianco all replied to this email, discussing various aspects and options for the text. 6. Meanwhile, Anne sent an email directly after the call with some thoughts on the language of this paragraph, to which there were numerous responses by eight different members of the subgroup (Kavouss, Tijani, Steve, Rudy, Brett, Bastiaan, Seun and David) over the next couple of days. 7. Members of the drafting team took note of these discussions on the list and then put together a suggested revised text to be discussed by the Subgroup. 8. On August 15, the date set to return a text to the list, David Macauley on behalf of the Drafting Team sent a suggested text to the full list for the Subgroup to consider. Brett and Anne (who had not yet seen the very final suggested text due to time zone differences) responded in support of the suggested text. Jorge and Kavouss responded, objecting to the suggested text. 9. There were also responses to Niels' agenda email to the list, commenting on the suggested text -- Brett, Matthew, Rudy, and Anne in support; Jorge and Kavouss objecting. 10. This suggested text was then discussed on the August 15 call. The decision on that call, as reported in the post-call email from MSSI Secretariat, was: * The modifications proposed by the drafting team were not supported and as such are rejected. The original text used in the public consultation will be used. Only David Macauley and Tatiana Tropina were present from the drafting team. Anne, Matthew and I were unable to attend. Kavouss was on the call and participated actively in the discussion of the revised text. Mark Carvell was present as an Observer. 11. At the following meeting on August 22, there was no further discussion of the drafting team's text. There was a second reading of the cover email to be sent to the Plenary with the Subgroup's report, including the language used to characterize the Subgroup's response to comments suggesting that the UNGP be expressly mentioned. There was also a lengthy discussion of procedural matters relating to the minority statement submitted by Jorge. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jorge. You may recall that in one version of the revised “Considerations” language proposed by me on the list, I included a specific reference to ICANN the organisation using the assessment tool specified in Ruggie Principle 18(b). This suggestion was rejected by the rest of the drafting team. As far as I know, there were not separate drafting team calls and everyone participated on the list and proposed language on the general list. I am not certain how the final language arose, but in the end I elected to support it. I do think that if either Kavouss or you as active members would have chosen to become drafting team members, the language might have been better. Thank you Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D33073.9D517550] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:04 AM To: lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> Cc: thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>;ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary Dear Niels, As anticipated, please find hereunder the final version of the dissenting opinion I would like to file to the report from the Subgroup: == "This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group). Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issueswhich they raised. In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as there was no open invitation to participate in the drafting team, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team. This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.” == Thanks for including it in the final report to be transmitted to the CCWG Plenary for its consideration. Kind regards Jorge Von:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]Im Auftrag von MSSI Secretariat Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2017 00:54 An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #32 | 29 August 2017 Hello all, You may find the recordings,Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2Human Rights Subgroup - Meeting #32 – 29 August 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/LwIhB The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call). A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432<tel:(310)%20460-8432> Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D33073.9D517550] Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. • Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_…> • PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_…> Decisions: Decision taken to proceed with submitting the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration. Action Items: NTO to submit the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration. Requests: Members of the subgroup are seeking clarification on who has rights to file a Minority Statement, per the CCWG charter, and what has been done in the past: • Has an Observer filed a Minority Statement in CCWG Accountability before? • Has anyone who wasn't an official Member (appointed from an SOAC) filed a Minority Statement in CCWG before? • What the CCWG Charter say about who has rights to file a Minority Statement? Documents -Revisions to HR Subgroup email to CCWG Plenary<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Revisions%20to%20…> ________________________________ 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<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

7 8

Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat
by Paul Rosenzweig Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Actually, that’s wrong Thiago, but you know that. The facts are that .cat has physical offices in Spain – hence its offices could be raided. That is true irrespective of whether or not the .cat owners are corporate domiciled in Spain or in France or anywhere else in the world. The same is true of ICANN’s offices in Turkey, which have not been raided by Turkish police and (we all fervently hope never will be). While I join everyone in dismay at the action of the Spanish authorities they prove my point, as Nigel said. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:47 AM To: 'farzaneh badii' <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>; Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat Dear all, Farzaneh is right in disagreeing with Nigel. The .CAT case only confirms that the territorial State, that is the State in which territory a legal entity is based (in this case the .CAT registry), is in the unique position to enforce its prescriptions against that legal entity. Notice that the action of "raiding" the .CAT registry was undertaken by Spanish law enforcers, and only they could have undertaken it (at least until such time as Spain consents to foreign officials' exercising forceful actions within Spanish territory). In sum, the "police raid" by Spain happened because the .CAT registry, being located in Spain, was subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Spain, notably its exclusive enforcement jurisdiction. In the case of ICANN, the lessons the .CAT case teaches us (as if anyone really needed this case to be convinced of the following) is that the United States, the country in whose territory ICANN is based (as well as where are located its DNS management activities), is in the unique position to enforce law prescriptions against ICANN, to enforce its sanctions regime against ICANN, to shutdown ICANN, to interfere with ICANN's DNS management activities. No other country is in a position to do so, and this should be remedied. Best regards, Thiago De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de farzaneh badii Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 08:51 Para: Nigel Roberts Cc: ws2-jurisdiction; ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> > wrote: I think this all clearly proves Paul Rosenzweig's point that ICANN's jurisdiction is irrelevant as national police forces and judicial authorities can apply national law to particular registries. Under the Treaty of Rome, incidentally, the .CAT registry has the complete right to move it's operations to any of the other 27 Member states (soon to be 26) of the Union. If it did that, would ICANN itself then come in the firing line from the Spanish courts, perhaps? I disagree. ICANN's jurisdiction is the most relevant when it comes to delegation-redelegation of ccTLDs and accreditation of regirars and approval of registries. This case does not prove the point that ICANN's jurisdiction is totally irrelenat under all circumstances. As we clearly demonstrated at the jurisdiction group. On 20/09/17 09:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: Hi all, you might find this article interesting. https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spani… Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

4 4

Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Nigel, Thank you for your thoughtful responses. In terms of exhausting domestic legal remedies, would .cat and its registrants be able to proceed on Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Are we concerned that the governing EU law (and the ECHR Treaty) are both inadequate to protect the registry and .cat registrants from the Spanish government? (Apparently the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was not made effective until the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009.) What is it that we are expecting ICANN to be able to do? As to someone else’s comment re the U.S. being in a position to shut down ICANN and the allegation that "this should be remedied", it strikes me that we should keep in mind that the U.S. has a First Amendment. It isn't clear to me why anyone thinks that the greatest danger here is that the U.S. Government would do what the Spanish government did. I would venture to say that injunctive relief for the registry would be immediately forthcoming and that the U.S. may be the very safest place for ICANN to be headquartered when it comes to freedom of speech. (It’s up to the RDS WG to come forward with a recommendation to balance privacy with consumer protection and criminal activity on the Internet.) Regarding jurisdictional considerations, perhaps we should be a bit more worried about ineffective enforcement of free speech rights. Why does the Spanish government, which again I note is an EU government, dare to do this when it is theoretically subject to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a member of the ECHR treaty? I’m sure this will prove an interesting discussion in Abu Dhabi in the high interest topic of Jurisdiction. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:42 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Paul Rosenzweig'; 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira'; 'farzaneh badii' Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat The EU doesn't have a human rights court. The European Court of Justice in Lux. is the highest court on matters of EU law. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is not an EU institution. It provides declaratory judgments on infringements by signatories (47 countries, see http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states ). As a condition of opening a case in the ECHR one must have exhausted domestic legal remedies first. > > It appears that many of their judgments are not enforced by national > governments but it would still be good to get the judgment anyway, > wouldn’t it? > > > > Hard to see how ICANN could enforce a Human Rights violation by an EU > government. Squarely in the realm of the EU Court of HR I would think. > > > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* > > Of Counsel > > 520.629.4428 office > > 520.879.4725 fax > > AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > > _____________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> > > > > *From:*ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:57 AM > *To:* 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira'; 'farzaneh badii'; 'Nigel Roberts' > *Cc:* 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat > > > > Actually, that’s wrong Thiago, but you know that. The facts are that > .cat has physical offices in Spain – hence its offices could be raided. > That is true irrespective of whether or not the .cat owners are > corporate domiciled in Spain or in France or anywhere else in the > world. The same is true of ICANN’s offices in Turkey, which have not > been raided by Turkish police and (we all fervently hope never will be). > > > > While I join everyone in dismay at the action of the Spanish authorities > they prove my point, as Nigel said. > > > > Paul > > > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > > My PGP Key: > https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 > > > > *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz > Jardim Oliveira > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:47 AM > *To:* 'farzaneh badii' <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com > <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>; Nigel Roberts > <nigel(a)channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat > > > > Dear all, > > > > Farzaneh is right in disagreeing with Nigel. > > > > The .CAT case only confirms that the territorial State, that is the > State in which territory a legal entity is based (in this case the .CAT > registry), is in the unique position to enforce its prescriptions > against that legal entity. > > > > Notice that the action of "raiding" the .CAT registry was undertaken by > Spanish law enforcers, and only they could have undertaken it (at least > until such time as Spain consents to foreign officials' exercising > forceful actions within Spanish territory). In sum, the "police raid" by > Spain happened because the .CAT registry, being located in Spain, was > subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Spain, notably its exclusive > enforcement jurisdiction. > > > > In the case of ICANN, the lessons the .CAT case teaches us (as if anyone > really needed this case to be convinced of the following) is that the > United States, the country in whose territory ICANN is based (as well as > where are located its DNS management activities), is in the unique > position to enforce law prescriptions against ICANN, to enforce its > sanctions regime against ICANN, to shutdown ICANN, to interfere with > ICANN's DNS management activities. No other country is in a position to > do so, and this should be remedied. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Thiago > > > > > > > > *De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Em nome de *farzaneh badii > *Enviada em:* quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 08:51 > *Para:* Nigel Roberts > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction; ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net > <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: > > > > I think this all clearly proves Paul Rosenzweig's point that ICANN's > jurisdiction is irrelevant as national police forces and judicial > authorities can apply national law to particular registries. > > Under the Treaty of Rome, incidentally, the .CAT registry has the > complete right to move it's operations to any of the other 27 Member > states (soon to be 26) of the Union. If it did that, would ICANN itself > then come in the firing line from the Spanish courts, perhaps? > > > > > > > > I disagree. ICANN's jurisdiction is the most relevant when it comes to > delegation-redelegation of ccTLDs and accreditation of regirars and > approval of registries. This case does not prove the point that ICANN's > jurisdiction is totally irrelenat under all circumstances.As we clearly > demonstrated at the jurisdiction group. > > > > > > > > > On 20/09/17 09:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: > > Hi all, > you might find this article interesting. > > https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spani… > > Best, > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@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. ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] .cat
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

This, no doubt, will be the subject of appeals and legal proceedings at a number of rights under the ECHR are engaged, for both registry and registrants. And there is no doubt that ECHR rights are legally enforceable in Spain. Art 10 (free expression) Art 6.1 (right to fair hearing) Art 8 (right to privacy) Art 1 of Prot 1 (right to property) and possibly even Art 3 of Prot 1 as well (although the allegations of the Spanish state is that the referendum is not "in accordance with law") In fact this case engages all the fundamental rights that ICANN needs to be concerned about. It's a pity, however, that ICANN shied away from embracing and defending human rights, hiding behing the 'applicable law' figleaf, since as it stands, it seems to be that there is neither any obligation on ICANN to do anything, nor any power to do anything. It's also instructive to note that .CAT is an ICANN-created gTLD (governed by gNSO based policy and contractual agreements) and not a ccTLD (to which subsidiarity applies), yet (as I predict will prove correct) ICANN and the gNSO have no standing or intervention in this action by the Spanish central authority. I think this all clearly proves Paul Rosenzweig's point that ICANN's jurisdiction is irrelevant as national police forces and judicial authorities can apply national law to particular registries. Under the Treaty of Rome, incidentally, the .CAT registry has the complete right to move it's operations to any of the other 27 Member states (soon to be 26) of the Union. If it did that, would ICANN itself then come in the firing line from the Spanish courts, perhaps? On 20/09/17 09:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: > Hi all, > you might find this article interesting. > > https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spani… > > Best, > Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >

3 3

dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

Dear Niels, As anticipated, please find hereunder the final version of the dissenting opinion I would like to file to the report from the Subgroup: == "This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group). Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issues which they raised. In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as there was no open invitation to participate in the drafting team, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team. This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.” == Thanks for including it in the final report to be transmitted to the CCWG Plenary for its consideration. Kind regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von MSSI Secretariat Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2017 00:54 An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #32 | 29 August 2017 Hello all, You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup - Meeting #32 – 29 August 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/LwIhB The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call). A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image001.png@01D32283.7E1E4710] Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. · Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_…> · PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_…> Decisions: Decision taken to proceed with submitting the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration. Action Items: NTO to submit the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration. Requests: Members of the subgroup are seeking clarification on who has rights to file a Minority Statement, per the CCWG charter, and what has been done in the past: · Has an Observer filed a Minority Statement in CCWG Accountability before? · Has anyone who wasn't an official Member (appointed from an SOAC) filed a Minority Statement in CCWG before? · What the CCWG Charter say about who has rights to file a Minority Statement? Documents - Revisions to HR Subgroup email to CCWG Plenary<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Revisions%20to%20…>

10 20

Impact assessment of the draft human rights FOI
by Markus Kummer Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

Dear Niels, all, As you may recall, the Board had asked ICANN organization to prepare an impact assessment of the CCWG WS2 draft human rights FOI on ICANN organization. ICANN organization prepared the attached document, in cooperation with the Board,. I am pleased to share it with you for your consideration. Best regards Markus.

4 8

quorum
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear all, There has been some discussion about quorum. We do not have a formal rule on quorum in the CCWG. What we did in the past is this in order to keep the process as inclusive as possible: - We tried not to make a distinction between members and participants. According to the charter we can, but we tried to avoid this. Hence, such distinction is not applied when it comes to quorum. - As a rule of thumb, we would conduct meetings only when there are 5 or more members or participants on the call at 5 mins past the hour. That is just to make sure that discussion can take place. - A quorum is not really required for decision-making as no decision is taken in a single meeting. This shall ensure that as broad participation is possible. Also, when it comes to consensus calls, the co-chairs do take into account what interests are being represented and whether as many stakeholders as possible have chimed in. In other words, a consensus call would not work if only registrar representatives participate. Also, if many individuals represent one view, but they all represent the same stakeholder, that does not increase the weight in the consensus call. We have been working fine applying these principles in the past. I do hope that we can agree not to complicate the process at this stage. Please remember that if you were asking for more formalized approaches that require amending the charter, we would need to go back to the chartering organizations and that is a step we should not take lightly given the time constraints we are operating under. I am sorry I cannot join the HR call in a few mins due to other commitments. Thanks, Thomas

2 1

Outcomes of todays call
by Niels ten Oever Sept. 3, 2017

Sept. 3, 2017

Human Rights sub-group participants, On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached). The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision. It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so. As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC. 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

8 20