- Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda SECOND READING August 29 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear all, Tonight we will do a second reading of our message that will accompany our analysis of the Public Comments. If the second reading is successful we'll send the amended FoI and considerations document with the received minority statement to the CCWG. Am looking forward to the session at 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

4 7

Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #32 | 29 August 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 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 Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D320DD.C2EA90D0] 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…>

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of today’s call
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

Dear all, It appears the appropriate language in the ICANN context of descriptions of consensus (or lack thereof) is specifically addressed in the CCWG-ACCT Charter. The language I located in this regard is below. (Will staff please correct us if this is the wrong language?) The polling of active members is the manner suggested to assess “majority” and “minority” views. The polling described in the Charter does not appear to include polling of Observers or public commenters. I assume that polling applies to active members whether or not they are able to make a particular call. Thus, whether or not Jorge or Kavouss can make the next call, there will be two ticks for “Disagree” if the poll is repeated on August 29 at the second reading of the proposed reporting language. (In this regard, it may be appropriate for anyone who has actually been active in the group to switch his or her status out of the “Observer” category and into the “Active Members” category. If being designated an “active member” poses problems for particular governmental participants, I would appreciate being advised of those issues since the CCWG-ACCT Charter does not contemplate polling of Observers or public commenters.) It is because of the specifications in the Charter that I disagree with the “minimum common denominator” language proposed by Jorge. I think the language specified in the Outcome of our work has to make a reference to either “Consensus” (as described below) or “No Consensus”. Greg used the term “balanced consensus” and I am fine with that, though I would prefer a reference to “Consensus” with a capital “C” as defined below. If we in fact do not have a “Majority View” and a “Minority View”, then we have “No Consensus” on the FOI-HR. I certainly do not object to including the words “minimum common denominator” in the Minority Statement. I do wonder whether the Minority Statement submitted by Jorge ( and seconded by Kavouss) goes too far given the “Rules of Engagement” specified below. [cid:image001.png@01D31C04.D9889450] . Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D31C10.528C57A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 3:19 AM To: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; ws2-hr(a)icann.org Cc: thomas(a)rickert.net; thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Jorge, We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that. We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation. The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process. We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: > Dear Niels, > > I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and > requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove > them wrong. > > Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able > to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not > very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what > is on the record of this Subgroup. > > Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards > > Jorge > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever > [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 > 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; > ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; > mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; mcastanon(a)rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>; > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; > thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] > Outcomes of todays call > > Dear all, > > Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from > GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and > welcomed. > > I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help > us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next > call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: >> Dear Niels, >> >> >> >> I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call: >> >> >> >> /"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first >> reading by the participants present with the understanding that there >> will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion >> statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all >> such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next >> call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in >> the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for >> Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/ >> >> >> >> >> >> My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after >> checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's >> call. >> >> >> >> *1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the >> "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" >> as summarized on the "outcomes"* >> >> >> >> There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in >> the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented >> by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides >> "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making >> categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of. >> >> >> >> In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an >> explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members >> and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. >> Therefore there was and there is no unanimity. >> >> >> >> è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word >> "unanimous" _/ >> >> >> >> Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as >> Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in >> agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. >> At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the >> message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your >> first intervention). >> >> >> >> Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be >> considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on >> the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid >> alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the >> Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been >> presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present >> the options to the Subgroup. This was not done. >> >> >> >> To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by >> "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only >> discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" >> opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself. >> >> >> >> è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there >> was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *2. **Level of "consensus" designation. * >> >> >> >> As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation >> of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and >> cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 >> governments" disagreeing with the documents. >> >> >> >> Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection >> during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done >> implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to >> prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting >> heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and >> diversity. >> >> >> >> >> >> Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process >> should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced. >> >> >> >> I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away >> from these principles. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> >> >> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 >> 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>; Niels ten Oever >> <lists(a)nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays >> call >> >> >> >> Dear Niels, >> >> what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call >> and how many expressed such explicit support? >> >> Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call? >> >> thanks >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> -- >> >> >> *Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net >> <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um >> 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> >> <ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org%20%3cmailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] >> Outcomes of todays call >> >> >> >> 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<http://www.article19.org> <http://www.article19.org> >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> 68E9 >> > > -- 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 > -- 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 ________________________________ 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] [CCWG-ACCT] Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #31 | 22 August 2017
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear staff How many members attended the call? Apart from the Rapporteur I see three members taking the floor on the call, correct? Thanks and regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:33:26 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #31 | 22 August 2017 Hello all, You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Request (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #31 – 22 August 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/KwIhB. 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. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D31B5B.F7F09770] Action Items: * NTO Post the above decision to the list today. 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/69272107/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272107/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC. Requests: * (none)

2 2

Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #31 | 22 August 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Hello all, You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Request (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #31 – 22 August 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/KwIhB. 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. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D31B5B.F7F09770] Action Items: * NTO Post the above decision to the list today. 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/69272107/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272107/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC. Requests: * (none)

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear Rapporteur May I inquire why you take up the proposal from one member and leave unanswered the proposal I made several days ago? here for your convenience: " The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.” thx Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 20:46:06 MESZ An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG Thanks Greg, I've accepted the changes and made on small nit: The conclusion of the Subgroup is that the current proposed wording is a careful balance between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly considering the remit of ICANN’s Mission. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 05:33 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > I have attached some revisions to the email, mostly typos and > copy-editing. My suggestion on the sentence that is getting so much > attention is to change it so that it reads: > > The conclusion of the Subgroup is that the current proposed wording is a > balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN > community, particularly considering the remit of ICANN’s Mission. > > Greg > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:17 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: > > Dear Niels, > Thanks but I do not feel that such a disclaimer is up for the > Subgroup to decide as it expresses the view of one member and makes > clear that it is only this member's view. Besides, it is common > practice that members of working groups can include such disclaimers > on documents prepared by such working groups where the member has a > fundamental issue. A footnote would be OK for us. I hope I do not > need to escalate this issue further. > Regards > Jorge > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net > <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG > > Dear Jorge, > > That is a decision I cannot make by myself. I hope we can discuss > the document again this evening with you and Thiago present. If not, > we will discuss adding this with the subgroup. But since it > constitutes a consensus statement, and not a full consensus > statement, I am not sure whether outlining parties who were against > this statement is according to the standing practice. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 08/22/2017 07:03 AM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: > > Dear Niels, > > > > As I have not seen any direct reply to this I would kindly like to > request you to confirm reception of the below messages, and of our > request that a disclaimer is included to the document of "responses". > > > > thanks and regards > > > > Jorge > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> > > Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ > > An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>, Niels ten Oever > > <lists(a)nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> > > Betreff: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG > > > > Dear Niels, > > > > As to the "answers" to the comments I guess that they are the product > > of discussions I have missed unfortunately. However, I cannot agree > > with many of the "arguments" included in the Excel sheet and therefore > > would wish that a disclaimer be included in the document, stating that > > "these responses are not endorsed or supported by the representative > > of Switzerland who is member of this Subgroup" (the language can be > > improved, for sure) > > > > Thanks for taking note of this and regards > > > > Jorge > > > > Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 15:03 > > An: 'Niels ten Oever' <lists(a)nielstenoever.net > <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > > Betreff: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG > > > > > > Dear Niels, > > > > > > > > It will not come as a surprise that I have to reiterate that this > outcome is not satisfactory. Given the fact that the three > Government inputs received were in line regarding the mention of the > UNGP, I do not think that the following sentence is accurate: > > > > > > > > "The group feels the current proposed wording is a > balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN > community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN's Mission." > > > > > > > > In my view, it could read as follows: " The group feels the > current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text > between the different opinions held in the ICANN community." > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>> > > [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 14:53 > > An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org > <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> > > Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As a follow up to > yesterdays meeting Bernie and I have prepared a response to the CCWG > that you can find underneath, as well as a more detailed overview > attached. > > > > > > > > This is a first draft. We would very much like to hear you > comments, suggestions and improvements. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN's > Accountability Human Rights Subgroup would like to sincerely thanks > those who have taken the time and effort to submit public comment to > the Framework of Interpretation and Considerations document during > the Public Comment Period [0]. > > > > > > > > The Subgroup has analyzed and discussed the comments at great > length and came to the following conclusions: > > > > > > > > The mandate of the group does not include suggesting any changes > to the ICANN Bylaws, this includes the Bylaw on Human Rights. As > such any comments which would require changing the Bylaws cannot be > accepted. > > > > This is the case for comments recommending changes in the > hierarchy of Core Values as outlined in the bylaw or for comments > pertaining the use of the term "applicable law" which is part of > ICANN's Human Rights bylaw. > > > > > > > > The Subgroup does recognize that the documents mentioned in the > footnotes are not necessarily an exhaustive list of human rights > document, and therefore the text has been changed from 'including:' > to 'including, but not limited to:'. > > > > > > > > Finally, no new references to any instrument in general or the UN > Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in specific have > been added. The group feels the current proposed wording is a > balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN > community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN's Mission. > > > > > > > > The HR sub-group has developed a document which lists a response > to each of the major comments submitted to the public consultation > and is including it in this email for reference by the > CCWG-Accountability-WS2. > > > > This will be published on the public consultation web site as part > of the standard process. > > > > > > > > As such the HR sub-group is submitting its final recommendations > for an HR FoI to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 for approval. Given the > submissions made in the public comment process and the minimal > changes that have been made to the document to address these the HR > sub-group would not recommend this version be posted for public comment. > > > > > > > > [0] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en > <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Niels ten Oever > > > > Head of Digital > > > > > > > > Article 19 > > > > www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> > <http://www.article19.org><http://www.article19.org > <http://www.article19.org>> > > > > > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > > > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org<http://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<http://www.article19.org> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 0

Draft Message to CCWG
by Niels ten Oever Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As a follow up to yesterdays meeting Bernie and I have prepared a response to the CCWG that you can find underneath, as well as a more detailed overview attached. This is a first draft. We would very much like to hear you comments, suggestions and improvements. All the best, Niels The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability Human Rights Subgroup would like to sincerely thanks those who have taken the time and effort to submit public comment to the Framework of Interpretation and Considerations document during the Public Comment Period [0]. The Subgroup has analyzed and discussed the comments at great length and came to the following conclusions: The mandate of the group does not include suggesting any changes to the ICANN Bylaws, this includes the Bylaw on Human Rights. As such any comments which would require changing the Bylaws cannot be accepted. This is the case for comments recommending changes in the hierarchy of Core Values as outlined in the bylaw or for comments pertaining the use of the term “applicable law” which is part of ICANN’s Human Rights bylaw. The Subgroup does recognize that the documents mentioned in the footnotes are not necessarily an exhaustive list of human rights document, and therefore the text has been changed from ‘including:’ to ‘including, but not limited to:’. Finally, no new references to any instrument in general or the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in specific have been added. The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission. The HR sub-group has developed a document which lists a response to each of the major comments submitted to the public consultation and is including it in this email for reference by the CCWG-Accountability-WS2. This will be published on the public consultation web site as part of the standard process. As such the HR sub-group is submitting its final recommendations for an HR FoI to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 for approval. Given the submissions made in the public comment process and the minimal changes that have been made to the document to address these the HR sub-group would not recommend this version be posted for public comment. [0] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

6 18

Proposed Agenda Session 33 - Aug 22 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached the proposed agenda for our call tonight, as well as underneath: 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Discuss draft document for submission to CCWG 3. AOB Please also find the documents attached. Two suggestions for new language have been made on the list: 1. by Anne: “While most of the group supports the position that there is no obligation for ICANN to adopt UNGP, there is a Minority View in favor of voluntary adoption of UNGP by ICANN the organization for assessment purposes .” 2. by Jorge: “these responses are not endorsed or supported by the representative of Switzerland who is member of this Subgroup” -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

3 2

WG: Draft Message to CCWG
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

Fyi see below - just in case this message from our Brazilian colleague had not reached the list. Kind regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira [mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. August 2017 14:46 An: 'lists(a)nielstenoever.net' <lists(a)nielstenoever.net>; 'ws2-hr(a)icann.org' <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> Cc: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>; Mark Carvell (mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk) <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca(a)itamaraty.gov.br> Betreff: RE: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG Dear Niels, It has been drawn to our attention that the comments and suggestions made by Brazil on the Framework of Interpretation of Human Rights were not accepted. Brazil examined the "answers" the subgroup provided and feels they do not adequately addresses our concerns, nor do they adequately answer the points we raised. We regret that we have not been invited to take part in the discussions leading to this outcome and would like that a disclaimer be included in whatever document is circulated with these "answers", stating that (i) Brazil was not invited to participate in the discussions where the subgroup considered Brazil's comments and that (ii) Brazil does not endorse or support the "answers" provided by the subgroup. Thank you. Best regards, Thiago Jardim Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Secretary, Information Society Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil +55 61 2030 6389 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 14:53 An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As a follow up to yesterdays meeting Bernie and I have prepared a response to the CCWG that you can find underneath, as well as a more detailed overview attached. This is a first draft. We would very much like to hear you comments, suggestions and improvements. All the best, Niels The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability Human Rights Subgroup would like to sincerely thanks those who have taken the time and effort to submit public comment to the Framework of Interpretation and Considerations document during the Public Comment Period [0]. The Subgroup has analyzed and discussed the comments at great length and came to the following conclusions: The mandate of the group does not include suggesting any changes to the ICANN Bylaws, this includes the Bylaw on Human Rights. As such any comments which would require changing the Bylaws cannot be accepted. This is the case for comments recommending changes in the hierarchy of Core Values as outlined in the bylaw or for comments pertaining the use of the term “applicable law” which is part of ICANN’s Human Rights bylaw. The Subgroup does recognize that the documents mentioned in the footnotes are not necessarily an exhaustive list of human rights document, and therefore the text has been changed from ‘including:’ to ‘including, but not limited to:’. Finally, no new references to any instrument in general or the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in specific have been added. The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission. The HR sub-group has developed a document which lists a response to each of the major comments submitted to the public consultation and is including it in this email for reference by the CCWG-Accountability-WS2. This will be published on the public consultation web site as part of the standard process. As such the HR sub-group is submitting its final recommendations for an HR FoI to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 for approval. Given the submissions made in the public comment process and the minimal changes that have been made to the document to address these the HR sub-group would not recommend this version be posted for public comment. [0] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en> -- 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

5 7

Re: [Ws2-hr] RES: Draft Message to CCWG
by Niels ten Oever Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

Dear Thiago, Would it still be possible for you to participate in the upcoming call on Tuesday at 19:00 UTC ? That could pose an opportunity to discuss the comments and the outcome of the groups discussion. Best, Niels On 08/18/2017 01:59 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: > Dear Niels, > > Thank you very much for your message. We acknowledge that there was a general invitation addressed to all GAC members (particularly those who provided comments) to further participate in the activities of the subgroup, and we regret not being able to attend to those. But the truth remains that we did not receive prior notice of the specific meeting(s) where the subgroup was going to consider and did consider Brazil's comments, nor did the subgroup seek Brazil's participation to further comment on or clarify our views after and in response to the meetings where Brazil's comments were considered. > > We understand that this was a matter for the subgroup to decide, and judging from the transcript of meeting #26 (18 July 2017), despite your own call to the effect that a representative of Brazil be on a call to further comment on or clarify our concerns, your suggestion was not taken up by the subgroup. Here's the quotation of your own suggestion, which the subgroup did not follow: "We could also consider inviting a representative of the government of Brazil maybe to explain their position in a bit more detail, or reach out to them in a following call." > > Therefore, we acknowledge that we have not participated in the discussions leading up to the "answers" to Brazil's comments, but also that we did not receive prior nor subsequent notice of the meetings where Brazil's comments were going to be discussed and were discussed. It is in view of the above that we would like to see a disclaimer included in any document referencing Brazil stating that we were not called upon to participate in the discussions that specifically dealt with Brazil's public comments, alongside with the statement that the "answers" to our comments are neither supported nor endorsed by Brazil. > > Thank you. > > Best regards, > > Thiago > > > Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira > Secretary, Information Society Division > Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil > +55 61 2030 6389 > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 de agosto de 2017 06:02 > Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; 'ws2-hr(a)icann.org' > Cc: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; Mark Carvell (mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk) Benedicto Fonseca Filho > Assunto: Re: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG > > Dear Thiago, > > Thank you very much for your message. If I recall correctly, during the session of the GAC Working Group on Human Rights and International Law I explicitly invited commenters during the Public Comment Period and GAC members in general to participate in the discussions in the CCWG Human Rights Subgroup. > > Your comments have been discussed in great detail, as can be observed in the transcripts of the subgroup. If you think they have been insufficiently discussed - I would like to invite you again to partake in the discussion on this list and in our meetings on Tuesdays at 19:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/mssi-projects. > > All the best, > > Niels > > > > > On 08/17/2017 02:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: >> Dear Niels, >> >> It has been drawn to our attention that the comments and suggestions made by Brazil on the Framework of Interpretation of Human Rights were not accepted. Brazil examined the "answers" the subgroup provided and feels they do not adequately addresses our concerns, nor do they adequately answer the points we raised. We regret that we have not been invited to take part in the discussions leading to this outcome and would like that a disclaimer be included in whatever document is circulated with these "answers", stating that (i) Brazil was not invited to participate in the discussions where the subgroup considered Brazil's comments and that (ii) Brazil does not endorse or support the "answers" provided by the subgroup. Thank you. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thiago Jardim >> >> >> Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira >> Secretary, Information Society Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs, >> Brazil >> +55 61 2030 6389 >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im >> Auftrag von Niels ten Oever >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 14:53 >> An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org >> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As a follow up to yesterdays meeting Bernie and I have prepared a response to the CCWG that you can find underneath, as well as a more detailed overview attached. >> >> >> >> This is a first draft. We would very much like to hear you comments, suggestions and improvements. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> >> >> Niels >> >> >> >> The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability Human Rights Subgroup would like to sincerely thanks those who have taken the time and effort to submit public comment to the Framework of Interpretation and Considerations document during the Public Comment Period [0]. >> >> >> >> The Subgroup has analyzed and discussed the comments at great length and came to the following conclusions: >> >> >> >> The mandate of the group does not include suggesting any changes to the ICANN Bylaws, this includes the Bylaw on Human Rights. As such any comments which would require changing the Bylaws cannot be accepted. >> >> This is the case for comments recommending changes in the hierarchy of Core Values as outlined in the bylaw or for comments pertaining the use of the term “applicable law” which is part of ICANN’s Human Rights bylaw. >> >> >> >> The Subgroup does recognize that the documents mentioned in the footnotes are not necessarily an exhaustive list of human rights document, and therefore the text has been changed from ‘including:’ to ‘including, but not limited to:’. >> >> >> >> Finally, no new references to any instrument in general or the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in specific have been added. The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission. >> >> >> >> The HR sub-group has developed a document which lists a response to each of the major comments submitted to the public consultation and is including it in this email for reference by the CCWG-Accountability-WS2. >> >> This will be published on the public consultation web site as part of the standard process. >> >> >> >> As such the HR sub-group is submitting its final recommendations for an HR FoI to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 for approval. Given the submissions made in the public comment process and the minimal changes that have been made to the document to address these the HR sub-group would not recommend this version be posted for public comment. >> >> >> >> [0] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en >> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

2 1