I think we have to be careful in how we interpret Annex 12.  It says:

"... the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used..."

The bullets in Annex 12 are things to consider in elaborating the language that we use in the FoI, not questions that have to be answered.  Have we considered the issues raised in Annex 12?  Yes, to a greater or lesser degree and I suspect that we have touched upon all of them a number of times in our various discussions. 

I think we need to agree on an approach as to how we should account for the bullets.  Have we addressed them - considered them - enough as we were writing the FoI?  And if they are not accounted for in some form in the FoI do we write a para on each saying what the result of our considerations were?

Also, and this may be an issue of interpretation, but I always understood that the FoI does not operationalize the bylaw.  It provides context and guidance as to how it should be interpreted.  Operationalizing the bylaw - or how it is implemented - is what some of those bullets are getting at in Annex 12 - and those are issues beyond the FoI.  That is what I thought we were starting to address before we asked the CCWG for guidance (which has, I believe, great merit).

Matthew

This is a good summary of where we are.


On 27/01/17 11:40, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Dear all,

I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed
developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability
WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is
interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version
of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do
I believe it makes bylaw operational.

The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the
adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI
will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't
answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE
makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the
mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs
and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The
idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity
without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this
problem.

So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we
have to include.

Happy to hear other opinions.

Warm regards

Tanya


On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Dear all,

Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs
to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your
initial reaction is.

All the best,

Niels


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
Date:     Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600
From:     León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
To:     CCWG Accountability<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>



Dear all,

The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights
sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.

The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in
interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between
Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be
surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The
Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex
12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a
consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.

The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested
of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider
how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact
with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this
would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear
how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually
have on the FOI that has been produced.

Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that
the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the
Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1
Recommendations.

Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN
implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be
amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such
suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there
was no objection from the plenary.

Best regards,


Thomas, Mathieu and León



_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987