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 office
|
|
|
520.879.4725 fax
|
|
AAikman@lrrc.com
|
|
_____________________________
|
|
<image003.png>
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
|
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
|
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
|
|
lrrc.com
|
|
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
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@icann.org
Cell: +1-310-460-8432
Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann
www.icann.org
<image004.png>
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
·
PDF
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