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 -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
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@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 -- 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
I do see the point Jorge is making and I think this must be why the GAC asked for “applicable law” of the jurisdiction to be a “high interest topic” in Abu Dhabi. I am trying to remember whether the Accountability plenary developed any guidelines for describing different levels of “consensus”. GNSO has very specific categories for consensus during a Policy Development Process. If we borrow their terminology, “Minority View” cold apply in relation to the Ruggie Principles as expressed by members from Switzerland and the UK (rather than a statement relating to Jorge personally). I don’t support the “lowest common denominator” language but would certainly support a statement that “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 .” The above terminology is taken from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Again I am not sure whether Accountability has its own separate consensus guidelines – (just can’t remember at this point.) I think we also said somewhere in the FOI that as to Ruggie, there was “no consensus”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3168B.B7671E10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:03 AM To: lists@nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [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@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@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 -- 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 ________________________________ 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.
Hello Anne, I do think the wording you've suggested here is more appropriate (in addition with the naming if required). I don't think "significant minority" flows very well in this context. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 16, 2017 8:33 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I do see the point Jorge is making and I think this must be why the GAC asked for “applicable law” of the jurisdiction to be a “high interest topic” in Abu Dhabi. I am trying to remember whether the Accountability plenary developed any guidelines for describing different levels of “consensus”.
GNSO has very specific categories for consensus during a Policy Development Process. If we borrow their terminology, “Minority View” cold apply in relation to the Ruggie Principles as expressed by members from Switzerland and the UK (rather than a statement relating to Jorge personally). I don’t support the “lowest common denominator” language but would certainly support a statement that
*“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 .” *
The above terminology is taken from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Again I am not sure whether Accountability has its own separate consensus guidelines – (just can’t remember at this point.) I think we also said somewhere in the FOI that as to Ruggie, there was “no consensus”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:03 AM *To:* lists@nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [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@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org <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
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
------------------------------
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.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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 -- 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
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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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 -- 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
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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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 I do not understand you at all, This is not a consensus at all. You need to discuss uit. I object to the disclaimers prepared by ANN Pls kindly put it on the agenda. I will be able to attend as I will not have access to internet. I request Thiago to convey my views to the group as I am in full agreement with views from Brezil Kavouss On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever < 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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Sorry Kavouss, you are right, my sentence was unclear. To make it clearer the sentence should have read: But since it _would_ constitute 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. Looking forward to discuss the documents on the call tonight. I will be sharing the proposed agenda shortly. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 03:05 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Niels I do not understand you at all, This is not a consensus at all. You need to discuss uit. I object to the disclaimers prepared by ANN Pls kindly put it on the agenda. I will be able to attend as I will not have access to internet. I request Thiago to convey my views to the group as I am in full agreement with views from Brezil Kavouss
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
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@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@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> > Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ > An: ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>, Niels ten Oever <lists@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@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@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@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@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>> > > > > 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@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 PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
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@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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Niels I can nit agree with the language proposed by Greg It is not a balanced language in our views In views of those opposing to the public comments it may be a balanced language but NOT in our views Pls report to CCWG that due to prevailing circumstances those who objected to the language proposed by ANN and Greg COULD not attend the meeting and reserve their rights to come back at CCWG THERE WAS NO CONSENSZUS. That is what you have to report . I emphasize that once again Regards My access to internet is ended by 18,00 UTC Regards Kavouss . On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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@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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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 _______________________________________________ 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
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@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@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; ws2-hr@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@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@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> > Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ > An: ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>, Niels ten Oever > <lists@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@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@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@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@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>> > > > > 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@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 PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Dear Niels please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains. I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG 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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
Dear Jorge, At several points we offered changing the times but at those times you did not step forward, so I am a bit surprised you bring this up now. The drafting team was made up of volunteers who proposed text for discussion in the whole group. That GAC members did not take part in it, is solely because of lack of volunteers from the GAC. We've had extensive discussions about the public comment documents in the group, which I think would have very much benefited from more GAC voices, and the door is still open to participate. We'll discuss your points in the call of this evening. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 06:29 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains. I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Dear Niels, Thanks for considering my comments, which habe been reiterated several times. Not all of us have the same amount of time to devote to these efforts. We try to contribute in writing, especially on the ws2 HR emailing list. As for your offers to change the call times I am not aware of them, maybe I have missed them - I only recall that when I made this point several months ago you considered that this did not have support. As for the drafting team I am not aware of any call for expressions of interest being circulated to the list, but I may have missed that. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 20:06:05 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG Dear Jorge, At several points we offered changing the times but at those times you did not step forward, so I am a bit surprised you bring this up now. The drafting team was made up of volunteers who proposed text for discussion in the whole group. That GAC members did not take part in it, is solely because of lack of volunteers from the GAC. We've had extensive discussions about the public comment documents in the group, which I think would have very much benefited from more GAC voices, and the door is still open to participate. We'll discuss your points in the call of this evening. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 06:29 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains. I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
-- 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
Dear Jorge, I am very sorry to hear that, and it is understandable. In the description of 'active participants' it is however noted that: Active Participants engage in the day-to-day discussions of the particular topic. Each active participant is expected to spend at least 3-5 hours per week on sub-group work and will have posting rights to the mailing list. It is understandable that not everyone has this time, but these are the requirements for active participants. Work for the subgroup is being done on the calls and the list, we cannot limit the work to solely what is being done on the list, as you will understand. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 08:24 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
Thanks for considering my comments, which habe been reiterated several times.
Not all of us have the same amount of time to devote to these efforts. We try to contribute in writing, especially on the ws2 HR emailing list.
As for your offers to change the call times I am not aware of them, maybe I have missed them - I only recall that when I made this point several months ago you considered that this did not have support.
As for the drafting team I am not aware of any call for expressions of interest being circulated to the list, but I may have missed that.
regards Jorge
________________________________
Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 20:06:05 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
Dear Jorge,
At several points we offered changing the times but at those times you did not step forward, so I am a bit surprised you bring this up now.
The drafting team was made up of volunteers who proposed text for discussion in the whole group. That GAC members did not take part in it, is solely because of lack of volunteers from the GAC.
We've had extensive discussions about the public comment documents in the group, which I think would have very much benefited from more GAC voices, and the door is still open to participate.
We'll discuss your points in the call of this evening.
Best,
Niels
On 08/22/2017 06:29 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains. I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
-- 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
Dear Niels, I guess that overall I would have met those "requirements", especially during the development of the FoI... But I feel you identify the work on the calls - at 19 UTC a very suitable time for the western hemisphere but a no-go for a normal family balance in central Europe and much of Africa- with all work of the subgroup which is hardly inclusive and respectful of the need to involve as many as possible. This should particularly be obvious when one key AC is continuously underrepresented in calls... Besides this I would appreciate your pointing to the specific offers to change the timing and to express interest in taking part in the drafting group. Apologies if I missed the corresponding messages to the list. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 20:32:18 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG Dear Jorge, I am very sorry to hear that, and it is understandable. In the description of 'active participants' it is however noted that: Active Participants engage in the day-to-day discussions of the particular topic. Each active participant is expected to spend at least 3-5 hours per week on sub-group work and will have posting rights to the mailing list. It is understandable that not everyone has this time, but these are the requirements for active participants. Work for the subgroup is being done on the calls and the list, we cannot limit the work to solely what is being done on the list, as you will understand. Best, Niels On 08/22/2017 08:24 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
Thanks for considering my comments, which habe been reiterated several times.
Not all of us have the same amount of time to devote to these efforts. We try to contribute in writing, especially on the ws2 HR emailing list.
As for your offers to change the call times I am not aware of them, maybe I have missed them - I only recall that when I made this point several months ago you considered that this did not have support.
As for the drafting team I am not aware of any call for expressions of interest being circulated to the list, but I may have missed that.
regards Jorge
________________________________
Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 20:06:05 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
Dear Jorge,
At several points we offered changing the times but at those times you did not step forward, so I am a bit surprised you bring this up now.
The drafting team was made up of volunteers who proposed text for discussion in the whole group. That GAC members did not take part in it, is solely because of lack of volunteers from the GAC.
We've had extensive discussions about the public comment documents in the group, which I think would have very much benefited from more GAC voices, and the door is still open to participate.
We'll discuss your points in the call of this evening.
Best,
Niels
On 08/22/2017 06:29 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains. I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
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] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 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@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@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <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@nielstenoever.net>; 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@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@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
--
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
-- 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
Dear Niels Please see my message send in this regards Kavouss. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Niels ten Oever -
Seun Ojedeji