New Draft Text for FoI
Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOs... The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him. I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Niels Thank you, this is very useful indeed. Since you mentioned Ruggie, I wonder what his response might be to expressed concerns. With regard to due diligence, I'm not clear if icann already has a process that triggers a due diligence process with regards to human rights per se. rd On Oct 3, 2016 11:07 AM, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_ 0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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
Niels, I wanted to highlight this statement in the document: “Pursuant to the UNGPs, ICANN can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, ICANN can prioritize areas of focus, such as its operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with its Mission. In addition, operational level grievance mechanisms should be established to address human rights grievances. ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs.” And “As stated above, application of the human rights Core Value does not create any legal obligation of ICANN outside its Mission. It is assumed that it is implicit in ICANN’s Mission that it will operate within the bounds of applicable laws; furthermore, it is also assumed that ICANN has the discretion to voluntarily make commitments to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence.” The text of the human rights core value states: “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.” The text quoted above from the draft FoI seems to be proposing a that because ICANN would be “voluntarily” identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts, that these commitments would not be inconsistent with the text of the new bylaws and that it would differ from an “obligation”. Is that correct? Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:07 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit> The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him. I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc. Best, Niels -- 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
Probably should say something like this in order to be clear and make the roles within the organization clear: Unlike the internationally recognized human rights which legally obligate states (see below), the UNGPs do not create new international law obligations or limit or undermine any legal obligations a State may have (UNGPs, General Principles). This also means that the UNGPs do not require enterprises to enforce human rights, which is the legal duty of states. Pursuant to the UNGPs, and consistent with existing processes and protocols, including, but not limited to, the MultiStakeholder Bottom-Up Policy Development Process, the ICANN Empowered Community can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, the ICANN Empowered Community can prioritize areas of focus, such as ICANN operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with ICANN’s Mission. In addition, while operational level grievance mechanisms may be established to address human rights grievances for internal matters, no such mechanism shall apply for the purpose of enforcing claims of human rights violations against third parties or as between one party and another party. ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs. Unless required by applicable law, all human rights policies shall be developed pursuant to the MultiStakeholder Model bottom-up process and shall be effective upon subsequent adoption by the ICANN Board. The above assumes that my idea for a Human Rights Objection process to new gTLD applications is toast. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D21D69.068CD470] 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 Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 8:56 AM To: Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Niels, I wanted to highlight this statement in the document: “Pursuant to the UNGPs, ICANN can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, ICANN can prioritize areas of focus, such as its operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with its Mission. In addition, operational level grievance mechanisms should be established to address human rights grievances. ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs.” And “As stated above, application of the human rights Core Value does not create any legal obligation of ICANN outside its Mission. It is assumed that it is implicit in ICANN’s Mission that it will operate within the bounds of applicable laws; furthermore, it is also assumed that ICANN has the discretion to voluntarily make commitments to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence.” The text of the human rights core value states: “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.” The text quoted above from the draft FoI seems to be proposing a that because ICANN would be “voluntarily” identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts, that these commitments would not be inconsistent with the text of the new bylaws and that it would differ from an “obligation”. Is that correct? Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:07 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOs... The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him. I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc. Best, Niels -- 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.
Yes thank you.. indeed your red inserts are affording it degrees of transparency. But, gTLDs Is it general consensus that ICANN, or the empowered community (which I thought..post iana contract) becomes ICANN.... should divorce itself from any notion of any sanction across the gTLD landscape? rd On Oct 3, 2016 2:27 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Probably should say something like this in order to be clear and make the roles within the organization clear:
Unlike the internationally recognized human rights which legally obligate states (see below), the UNGPs do not create new international law obligations or limit or undermine any legal obligations a State may have (UNGPs, General Principles). This also means that the UNGPs do not require enterprises to enforce human rights, which is the legal duty of states.
Pursuant to the UNGPs, and consistent with existing processes and protocols, including, but not limited to, the MultiStakeholder Bottom-Up Policy Development Process, the ICANN Empowered Community can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, the ICANN Empowered Community can prioritize areas of focus, such as ICANN operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with ICANN’s Mission. In addition, while operational level grievance mechanisms may be established to address human rights grievances for internal matters, no such mechanism shall apply for the purpose of enforcing claims of human rights violations against third parties or as between one party and another party.
ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs. Unless required by applicable law, all human rights policies shall be developed pursuant to the MultiStakeholder Model bottom-up process and shall be effective upon subsequent adoption by the ICANN Board.
The above assumes that my idea for a Human Rights Objection process to new gTLD applications is toast.
*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 *Schaefer, Brett *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2016 8:56 AM *To:* Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI
Niels,
I wanted to highlight this statement in the document:
“Pursuant to the UNGPs, ICANN can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, ICANN can prioritize areas of focus, such as its operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with its Mission. In addition, operational level grievance mechanisms should be established to address human rights grievances.
ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs.”
And
“As stated above, application of the human rights Core Value does not create any legal obligation of ICANN outside its Mission. It is assumed that it is implicit in ICANN’s Mission that it will operate within the bounds of applicable laws; furthermore, it is also assumed that ICANN has the discretion to voluntarily make commitments to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence.”
The text of the human rights core value states: “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.”
The text quoted above from the draft FoI seems to be proposing a that because ICANN would be “voluntarily” identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts, that these commitments would not be inconsistent with the text of the new bylaws and that it would differ from an “obligation”.
Is that correct?
Brett
------------------------------
*Brett* *Schaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org <ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Monday, October 03, 2016 11:07 AM *To:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_ 0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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
H all, I do not have the time to respond to this in detail, and I probably am not able to attend today’s call, at least not on time. But I want to echo the concerns stated by Tatiana and Matthew at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOs... I too am confused, euphemistically speaking, that this document takes Ruggie’s UNGPs as a base line: seemingly because a.o. ’the application of the UNGPs to ICANN’s operations and policies does not create legal obligation beyond those found in laws applicable to ICANN.’ First of all, from my perspective, we do not have consensus that (a subset of) the UNGPs are applicable to ICANN. Not even close. As a comment from Tatiana illustrates: ‘the text suggested in this document is inconsistent with what we are discussing on the calls and depends on the results of the Ruggie discussion. To put the Ruggie in the draft without respecting the outcome of the Ruggie discussion would be careless.’ More importantly, I think Ruggie is very explicit with regard to what ‘business enterprises should respect human rights’ means. For example, from the explanatory notes for article 11: ‘The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. (…) And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights’. That is IMO way beyond the scope of the bylaw- and mission text…. -Bastiaan
On 03 Oct 2016, at 20:26, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Probably should say something like this in order to be clear and make the roles within the organization clear:
Unlike the internationally recognized human rights which legally obligate states (see below), the UNGPs do not create new international law obligations or limit or undermine any legal obligations a State may have (UNGPs, General Principles). This also means that the UNGPs do not require enterprises to enforce human rights, which is the legal duty of states. Pursuant to the UNGPs, and consistent with existing processes and protocols, including, but not limited to, the MultiStakeholder Bottom-Up Policy Development Process, the ICANN Empowered Community can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, the ICANN Empowered Community can prioritize areas of focus, such as ICANN operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with ICANN’s Mission. In addition, while operational level grievance mechanisms may be established to address human rights grievances for internal matters, no such mechanism shall apply for the purpose of enforcing claims of human rights violations against third parties or as between one party and another party.
ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs. Unless required by applicable law, all human rights policies shall be developed pursuant to the MultiStakeholder Model bottom-up process and shall be effective upon subsequent adoption by the ICANN Board.
The above assumes that my idea for a Human Rights Objection process to new gTLD applications is toast.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image002.png> 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 Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 8:56 AM To: Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI
Niels,
I wanted to highlight this statement in the document:
“Pursuant to the UNGPs, ICANN can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, ICANN can prioritize areas of focus, such as its operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with its Mission. In addition, operational level grievance mechanisms should be established to address human rights grievances.
ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs.”
And
“As stated above, application of the human rights Core Value does not create any legal obligation of ICANN outside its Mission. It is assumed that it is implicit in ICANN’s Mission that it will operate within the bounds of applicable laws; furthermore, it is also assumed that ICANN has the discretion to voluntarily make commitments to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence.”
The text of the human rights core value states: “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.”
The text quoted above from the draft FoI seems to be proposing a that because ICANN would be “voluntarily” identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts, that these commitments would not be inconsistent with the text of the new bylaws and that it would differ from an “obligation”.
Is that correct?
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:07 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOs...
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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 thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOs...
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful Regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Niels thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ 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
First, as a fellow rapporteur I understand the need to move forward, and to create something to react to. I do feel however that we are jumping the gun. I would like to sign on to the concerns expressed by Bastiaan, who in turn is citing the concerns of Matthew and Tatiana. Based on our discussions so far, we have no consensus on whether, to what extent, or how any of the UNGPs might be applied. Yet the document seems to start from the opposite assumption. That concerns me, as I don't think that makes the process shorter but rather complicates our process. I'll paste in a statement that I made in comments to the document (apologies for not providing context): We are not merely seeing "where specific problems may be identified." That is tantamount to assuming the UNGPs are in, unless "problems can be identified." We are not operating under any such assumption. If anything, we are operating under the opposite assumption. We are seeing where the UNGPs can be applied to our work. In other words, no part of the UNGPs are in, unless there is consensus that they are in. Furthermore, there is no assumption that we are taking all or any part of the UNGP "as is" as opposed to being revised, modified, limited, etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:36 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful Regards Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI
Dear Niels
thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net :
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Greg I would suggest that we continue on a constructive path. My comment (quoted partially in your email) is intended to highlight that our common ground up to now is to analyze the UNGP on a case by case basis – and logically their usefulness would be determined by the fact that we had problems or not – and if so to what extent etc. Any assumption beyond that, both the one you infer from that partial quote as the one you are furthering from the very beginning of these discussions has not received any consensus or agreement within this group that I am aware of. Therefore, let’s go back to work, let’s not try to infer general assumptions, and let’s analyze what is useful and what is not from the UNGP, based on facts and not on fears. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>; ws2-hr@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI First, as a fellow rapporteur I understand the need to move forward, and to create something to react to. I do feel however that we are jumping the gun. I would like to sign on to the concerns expressed by Bastiaan, who in turn is citing the concerns of Matthew and Tatiana. Based on our discussions so far, we have no consensus on whether, to what extent, or how any of the UNGPs might be applied. Yet the document seems to start from the opposite assumption. That concerns me, as I don't think that makes the process shorter but rather complicates our process. I'll paste in a statement that I made in comments to the document (apologies for not providing context): We are not merely seeing "where specific problems may be identified." That is tantamount to assuming the UNGPs are in, unless "problems can be identified." We are not operating under any such assumption. If anything, we are operating under the opposite assumption. We are seeing where the UNGPs can be applied to our work. In other words, no part of the UNGPs are in, unless there is consensus that they are in. Furthermore, there is no assumption that we are taking all or any part of the UNGP "as is" as opposed to being revised, modified, limited, etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:36 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful 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>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Niels thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Jorge, While I can appreciate your position and approach, I note that Greg’s comment is actually forced by the language that has been prematurely inserted into the draft FOI. This was done in the name of “capturing our work” but several have pointed out that it does not actually do so since our work thus far was not at all in the nature of adopting the items that have been added to the draft. So in terms of being constructive, we really must take a step back from forced interpretations found in the proposed FOI text. Perhaps we simply go back to the prior draft as we continue to discuss the principles. That would, in my opinion, be a constructive way forward. Since you initially proposed we merely discuss the Ruggie Principles and their possible applicability, I hope that you would agree to this. As noted on the list, there are many who are not at all in agreement with the text inserted in the draft FOI. 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@01D21E36.222A9910] 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: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:43 AM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Greg I would suggest that we continue on a constructive path. My comment (quoted partially in your email) is intended to highlight that our common ground up to now is to analyze the UNGP on a case by case basis – and logically their usefulness would be determined by the fact that we had problems or not – and if so to what extent etc. Any assumption beyond that, both the one you infer from that partial quote as the one you are furthering from the very beginning of these discussions has not received any consensus or agreement within this group that I am aware of. Therefore, let’s go back to work, let’s not try to infer general assumptions, and let’s analyze what is useful and what is not from the UNGP, based on facts and not on fears. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI First, as a fellow rapporteur I understand the need to move forward, and to create something to react to. I do feel however that we are jumping the gun. I would like to sign on to the concerns expressed by Bastiaan, who in turn is citing the concerns of Matthew and Tatiana. Based on our discussions so far, we have no consensus on whether, to what extent, or how any of the UNGPs might be applied. Yet the document seems to start from the opposite assumption. That concerns me, as I don't think that makes the process shorter but rather complicates our process. I'll paste in a statement that I made in comments to the document (apologies for not providing context): We are not merely seeing "where specific problems may be identified." That is tantamount to assuming the UNGPs are in, unless "problems can be identified." We are not operating under any such assumption. If anything, we are operating under the opposite assumption. We are seeing where the UNGPs can be applied to our work. In other words, no part of the UNGPs are in, unless there is consensus that they are in. Furthermore, there is no assumption that we are taking all or any part of the UNGP "as is" as opposed to being revised, modified, limited, etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:36 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful 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>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Niels thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ 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.
Dear Anne My comment was triggered by the partial quotation of one of my comments. As I said from the start: let’s analyze the UNGP one by one. So far I feel we are just starting and we may well benefit also from the opinion of experts in interpreting what they actually mean at the practical level. Personally I have the impression that we still are far from a fact-based approach and to reckon the flexibilities inbuilt in those principles, which are further strengthened by the “core value” nature of the HR commitment and the strong Mission definition we have in the Bylaws. Best Jorge Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:55 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Betreff: RE: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Jorge, While I can appreciate your position and approach, I note that Greg’s comment is actually forced by the language that has been prematurely inserted into the draft FOI. This was done in the name of “capturing our work” but several have pointed out that it does not actually do so since our work thus far was not at all in the nature of adopting the items that have been added to the draft. So in terms of being constructive, we really must take a step back from forced interpretations found in the proposed FOI text. Perhaps we simply go back to the prior draft as we continue to discuss the principles. That would, in my opinion, be a constructive way forward. Since you initially proposed we merely discuss the Ruggie Principles and their possible applicability, I hope that you would agree to this. As noted on the list, there are many who are not at all in agreement with the text inserted in the draft FOI. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D21E82.48A6ABF0] 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> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:43 AM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Greg I would suggest that we continue on a constructive path. My comment (quoted partially in your email) is intended to highlight that our common ground up to now is to analyze the UNGP on a case by case basis – and logically their usefulness would be determined by the fact that we had problems or not – and if so to what extent etc. Any assumption beyond that, both the one you infer from that partial quote as the one you are furthering from the very beginning of these discussions has not received any consensus or agreement within this group that I am aware of. Therefore, let’s go back to work, let’s not try to infer general assumptions, and let’s analyze what is useful and what is not from the UNGP, based on facts and not on fears. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI First, as a fellow rapporteur I understand the need to move forward, and to create something to react to. I do feel however that we are jumping the gun. I would like to sign on to the concerns expressed by Bastiaan, who in turn is citing the concerns of Matthew and Tatiana. Based on our discussions so far, we have no consensus on whether, to what extent, or how any of the UNGPs might be applied. Yet the document seems to start from the opposite assumption. That concerns me, as I don't think that makes the process shorter but rather complicates our process. I'll paste in a statement that I made in comments to the document (apologies for not providing context): We are not merely seeing "where specific problems may be identified." That is tantamount to assuming the UNGPs are in, unless "problems can be identified." We are not operating under any such assumption. If anything, we are operating under the opposite assumption. We are seeing where the UNGPs can be applied to our work. In other words, no part of the UNGPs are in, unless there is consensus that they are in. Furthermore, there is no assumption that we are taking all or any part of the UNGP "as is" as opposed to being revised, modified, limited, etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:36 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful 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>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Niels thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ 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.
Jorge, I agree with you and in fact it appears to me that ICANN Legal has responded that this HR commitment carries a good deal of weight. At present, we are very far from a “fact-based approach”. I have been trying to get the subteam to focus on actual activities of ICANN and Paul McGrady has been trying to get the subteam to focus on the obligations that concern “applicable law”. In both cases, to little avail. This is unfortunate because it causes us to lose time. However, forcing Ruggie Principles language into the draft FOI is not a substitute for the fact-based approach you describe. The language inserted by Niels is definitely not agreed – as can be readily seen from the list. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D21E37.6FFB9940] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: AW: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Anne My comment was triggered by the partial quotation of one of my comments. As I said from the start: let’s analyze the UNGP one by one. So far I feel we are just starting and we may well benefit also from the opinion of experts in interpreting what they actually mean at the practical level. Personally I have the impression that we still are far from a fact-based approach and to reckon the flexibilities inbuilt in those principles, which are further strengthened by the “core value” nature of the HR commitment and the strong Mission definition we have in the Bylaws. Best Jorge Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:55 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Jorge, While I can appreciate your position and approach, I note that Greg’s comment is actually forced by the language that has been prematurely inserted into the draft FOI. This was done in the name of “capturing our work” but several have pointed out that it does not actually do so since our work thus far was not at all in the nature of adopting the items that have been added to the draft. So in terms of being constructive, we really must take a step back from forced interpretations found in the proposed FOI text. Perhaps we simply go back to the prior draft as we continue to discuss the principles. That would, in my opinion, be a constructive way forward. Since you initially proposed we merely discuss the Ruggie Principles and their possible applicability, I hope that you would agree to this. As noted on the list, there are many who are not at all in agreement with the text inserted in the draft FOI. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D21E37.6FCF8030] 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> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:43 AM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Greg I would suggest that we continue on a constructive path. My comment (quoted partially in your email) is intended to highlight that our common ground up to now is to analyze the UNGP on a case by case basis – and logically their usefulness would be determined by the fact that we had problems or not – and if so to what extent etc. Any assumption beyond that, both the one you infer from that partial quote as the one you are furthering from the very beginning of these discussions has not received any consensus or agreement within this group that I am aware of. Therefore, let’s go back to work, let’s not try to infer general assumptions, and let’s analyze what is useful and what is not from the UNGP, based on facts and not on fears. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 20:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI First, as a fellow rapporteur I understand the need to move forward, and to create something to react to. I do feel however that we are jumping the gun. I would like to sign on to the concerns expressed by Bastiaan, who in turn is citing the concerns of Matthew and Tatiana. Based on our discussions so far, we have no consensus on whether, to what extent, or how any of the UNGPs might be applied. Yet the document seems to start from the opposite assumption. That concerns me, as I don't think that makes the process shorter but rather complicates our process. I'll paste in a statement that I made in comments to the document (apologies for not providing context): We are not merely seeing "where specific problems may be identified." That is tantamount to assuming the UNGPs are in, unless "problems can be identified." We are not operating under any such assumption. If anything, we are operating under the opposite assumption. We are seeing where the UNGPs can be applied to our work. In other words, no part of the UNGPs are in, unless there is consensus that they are in. Furthermore, there is no assumption that we are taking all or any part of the UNGP "as is" as opposed to being revised, modified, limited, etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:36 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sorry, I forgot to add that I have included a series of comments in the Google doc - hope they are helpful 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>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 10:06 An: lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear Niels thanks for this constructive and useful first draft on the issue. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVn kBYUOsA2Q/edit
The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him.
I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc.
Best,
Niels
-- 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 <ICANN Bylaws Commentary Table.doc> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Niels ten Oever -
Rudolph Daniel -
Schaefer, Brett