Dear Niels If Thiago , Mark and Jorge agree to participate and the other side is ready to compromise, it would be good to make another try otherwise the discussion should be carried forward to CCWG with the fair treatment and conduct of the meeting there Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Aug 2017, at 18:33, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
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@icann.org' Cc: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; Mark Carvell (mark.carvell@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@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 14:53 An: 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>
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr