All,
The attached document shows the current email and a proposed revised email, which merely changes the texts quoted as suggested in my earlier email. I propose that the revised email be sent to the plenary, with a short note on top that says "Use this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report." (or words to that effect).It may seem picayune, but if we are asking the plenary how to interpret texts, we should give them the right texts.GregOn Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:This may help
http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/le c.pdf
On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any"
modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other
instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.
If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an
appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely
getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a
dish is limited to declining the soup.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >> wrote:
All,
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard
to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and
looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23.
Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors
in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final
Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in
the email.
In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the
operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the
language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does
not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This
paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of
Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the
Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is
probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is
another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in
the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which
would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28.
Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other
instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and
implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect
Human Rights.
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols,
consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to
ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s
consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC).
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s
operations are carried out.
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw
will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work
Stream 2 are:
o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw.
o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other
instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and
implementing the Bylaw.
o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN
needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its
commitment to respect Human Rights.
o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and
drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the
process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and
protocols.
o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC.
o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is
developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering
Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the
ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has
committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations
o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of
this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN
policies and procedures.
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG
draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was
never made.
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final
version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if
any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the
quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw
provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of
ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a
Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus
recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board
using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1
recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force
before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider
the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or
other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting
and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN
needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to
respect Human Rights.
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and
protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and
drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC).
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
ICANN’s operations are carried out.
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of
this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and
procedures.
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate
quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another
week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel RobertsWs2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org><nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country
at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a
contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is
just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other
person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT
CLINIC)
_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr >