Human Rights sub-group participants, On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached). The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision. It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so. As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC. 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 Thanks Apart from you , how many participants ( not observer and not secretariat ) were attending the call? Did you gave Quran? Minimum 6 participants should have been present?. I do not understand your majority and minority definition Four participants unable to attend were objecting to the text. How many agreed with your text Pls kindly correct yr statement. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 22:00, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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 <Revisions to HR Subgroup email to CCWG Plenary.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-Overview.xlsx> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Niels, what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support? Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call? thanks Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Human Rights sub-group participants, On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached). The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision. It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so. As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC. 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
Niels That was exactly my question The use of the term" consensus" to be very cautiously made First advise whether there was Quorum? Second reply to my questions as repeated by Jorge Pls DO NOT rush / jump to any harsh conclusions Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 22:44, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels, what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support? Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call? thanks Jorge
________________________________
Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Niels, I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call: "Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC." My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call. 1. On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes" There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of. In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity. è Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are in agreement of whether they have no objections to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention). Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done. To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself. è Therefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call. 2. Level of "consensus" designation. As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents. Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity. Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced. I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles. Kind regards Jorge Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 An: ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Betreff: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Niels, what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support? Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call? thanks Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Human Rights sub-group participants, On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached). The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision. It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so. As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC. 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
Dear all, Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed. I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/„Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC.”/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the „raw caption“ and the chat transcript of yesterday’s call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the “drafting group” by “unanimous consent” aka “unanimously approved” as summarized on the “outcomes”*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of “unanimous” requires explicit support. Besides “unanimous consent” or “unanimous approval” are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word “unanimous” _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for “comments” on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by “consensus” was a foregone conclusion during all the call – the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined “minority” opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was “consent”. Such “consent” was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of “consensus” designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are “4 participants in 4 governments” disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a “consensus” from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- 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 would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong. Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup. Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear all, Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed. I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Dear Jorge, We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that. We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation. The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process. We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Dear Niels, Thanks for these clarifications. The call for screen ticks you mention on the level of support to the “documents” subject to discussion is not clearly apparent from the raw capture and I have not seen it clearly on the "adobe replay" (please see on https://participate.icann.org/p3uljdb65qa/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb..., which shows between 8 and 13 participants –besides you- during the call). On minute 19:10 you asked the group whether they agreed with the process of going forward with the “minority statement” as a way for us to express our dissent – but this in my view is not a call for consensus on the documents for discussion as such. The discussion on this specific point continued another 10 minutes and on minute 28:50 you essentially asked the same question (“We are going to call this a finalized first reading of the documents we want to submit to the CCWG. Next week we are going to do the second reading. And in the meantime we are opening up for one week for minority statements to have them include in the submissions to the CCWG. Anyone got any issues with that?”) and there are a maximum of four green ticks during the replay – the other participants remaining silent and no one on the call opposing (to be fair). Anyhow, that would amount to "support" during the call on the specific question of how to handle the dissenting positions assumed to be a “minority” one. But IMHO this does not amount to "unanimous" support from the Subgroup, as I explained before. Therefore I would like to kindly request you to take that word out of the summary. As to how you presented my alternative text to paragraph 5 of the draft message to the CCWG (" The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.”, see in my Emails sent on August 16th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call) the "adobe call replay" shows that it was not mentioned and therefore not handled as an alternative. In fact (minute 7:38 of the adobe replay) what was discussed was a reference to my "disclaimer" (see my message of August 16th: “[…] 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”) – Actually you mentioned me but talked about the Brazilian Government not agreeing with the text [of the draft message to the CCWG I understand] – later at 9:19 you clarified that it was about the Swiss “disclaimer” not the Brazilian one. Even this was only done after the text prepared by the "drafting team" had been gone through. Hence, I’m very sorry to insist that even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was not properly considered and no discussion called on the different alternatives. As said, this lack of consideration is questionable. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done. To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by “consensus” was a foregone conclusion and simply assumed by you and some of the speakers during the call – the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined “minority” opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself… Kind regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 12:19 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Jorge, We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that. We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation. The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process. We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and
requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove
them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able
to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not
very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what
is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever
[mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017
11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>;
mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>;
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>;
thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr]
Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from
GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and
welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help
us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next
call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first
reading by the participants present with the understanding that there
will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion
statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all
such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next
call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in
the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for
Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after
checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's
call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the
"drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved"
as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in
the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented
by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides
"unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making
categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an
explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members
and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents.
Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word
"unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as
Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in
agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents.
At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the
message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your
first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be
considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on
the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid
alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the
Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been
presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present
the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by
"consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only
discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority"
opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there
was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation
of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and
cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4
governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection
during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done
implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to
prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting
heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and
diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process
should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away
from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017
22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>; Niels ten Oever
<lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays
call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call
and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net
<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um
22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>
<ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org%20%3cmailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr]
Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our
report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous
consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with
portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore
as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a
consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a
minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to
do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should
be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they
can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August
19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 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
-- 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
Thanks Jorge. The original text to which you objected was: 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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was: 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. The text you propose is: The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community. Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the "adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not handled as an alternative_.
-- 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, and dear all, thanks very much for your message, Niels. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons for our disagreement, which are twofold. From a substantive point of view, we disagree with the treatment of the inputs coming from Governments during the public comment period. In our view, a balanced result would need to reflect at least some of the legitimate points made in those inputs. Instead what we have as a result is that we stick to the previous status quo and that those inputs are answered quite laconically. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, which after all is the most relevant international voluntary standard, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs. From a procedural point of view I will not reiterate the detailed points made before. Simply put, I am of the view that the process to treat those inputs was not satisfactory in terms of transparence and stakeholder balance/inclusivity, which in particular led to no Government rep being part of the “drafting team” where the answers to the public comment were substantively discussed. Hence, I feel that calling this result of reverting to a status quo ante a “consensus” or a “careful balance” is not really an accurate description of the divergence of opinions expressed in this Subgroup nor a reflection of wider community feedback (as recorded in the public comment inputs). Therefore, in my view, it would be fairer to say that we agree to disagree on how to address the mentioned Government inputs and that according to common practice in the CCWG we essentially revert to the prior text adopted by the Subgroup. Hope this helps Best regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 14:07 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Thanks Jorge. The original text to which you objected was: 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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was: 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. The text you propose is: The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community. Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the
draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed
wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different
opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on
August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the
"adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not
handled as an alternative_.
-- 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 All If my support to the views expressed by Jorge is not Interpreted as " Silly maneuver by some governments"as it was inappropriately categorized as such by one sub group participant / observer( as I do not know the status of attendance of that person ) I fully and wholeheartedly support Jorge and request to come back to the two issues raised by Jorge Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Aug 2017, at 09:06, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels, and dear all,
thanks very much for your message, Niels.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons for our disagreement, which are twofold.
From a substantive point of view, we disagree with the treatment of the inputs coming from Governments during the public comment period. In our view, a balanced result would need to reflect at least some of the legitimate points made in those inputs. Instead what we have as a result is that we stick to the previous status quo and that those inputs are answered quite laconically. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, which after all is the most relevant international voluntary standard, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs.
From a procedural point of view I will not reiterate the detailed points made before. Simply put, I am of the view that the process to treat those inputs was not satisfactory in terms of transparence and stakeholder balance/inclusivity, which in particular led to no Government rep being part of the “drafting team” where the answers to the public comment were substantively discussed.
Hence, I feel that calling this result of reverting to a status quo ante a “consensus” or a “careful balance” is not really an accurate description of the divergence of opinions expressed in this Subgroup nor a reflection of wider community feedback (as recorded in the public comment inputs).
Therefore, in my view, it would be fairer to say that we agree to disagree on how to address the mentioned Government inputs and that according to common practice in the CCWG we essentially revert to the prior text adopted by the Subgroup.
Hope this helps
Best regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 14:07 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Thanks Jorge.
The original text to which you objected was:
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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was:
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.
The text you propose is:
The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.
Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the "adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not handled as an alternative_.
-- 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, Jorge, and members of the HR Subgroup, First, thank you, Jorge, for the explanation of your position in the note below. Since I have consistently on our calls favored not mentioning the UNGP in our report, it seems fair to explain myself on list as well. I applaud the desire to bolster ICANN’s HR efforts with reference to the UNGP – after all the Ruggie Principles represent a principled attempt to get “businesses” to take positive HR steps. My concern is that the UNGP are written for typical businesses and do not take account of ICANN’s unique mission – in fact strict application of the UNGP could undermine ICANN’s mission, in my opinion. I have expressed several concerns along the way but here will just focus on one. Under the UNGP, the responsibility to respect human rights requires that businesses, among other things, seek to mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations or services by their “business relationships,” even if they have not contributed to those impacts. “Business relationships” is a very broad term in the UNGP - including relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services. That must include registrants, among others. And while the UNGP try to accommodate various complexities, they nonetheless provide that If the business enterprise has leverage to prevent or mitigate the adverse impact, it should exercise it. It seems to me this aspect of the UNGP will inappropriately force ICANN into content issues outside its narrow mission. We have to keep in mind that HR-based claims will almost inevitably wind up in front of our new IRP panel. These (at least) seven new panelists will be drawn from legal circles independent of ICANN. There is simply no way to envision how they would interpret reference to the UNGP and no guarantee that this new precedent-setting body might not try to stretch ICANN’s mission to accommodate the UNGP. ICANN has just taken a significant step by explicitly adopting a core value aimed at respecting HR. In my opinion, there is no demonstrable need at present to make reference to the UNGP. If the community in the future discerns that such a need has subsequently arisen, then steps can be taken at that time to consider such a reference as appropriately tailored to take account of ICANN’s uniqueness. By that time, presumably, the IRP panel will have taken shape and have become a little more predictable than it is at the moment. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:06 AM To: lists@nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thomas@rickert.net; thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Niels, and dear all, thanks very much for your message, Niels. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons for our disagreement, which are twofold. From a substantive point of view, we disagree with the treatment of the inputs coming from Governments during the public comment period. In our view, a balanced result would need to reflect at least some of the legitimate points made in those inputs. Instead what we have as a result is that we stick to the previous status quo and that those inputs are answered quite laconically. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, which after all is the most relevant international voluntary standard, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs. From a procedural point of view I will not reiterate the detailed points made before. Simply put, I am of the view that the process to treat those inputs was not satisfactory in terms of transparence and stakeholder balance/inclusivity, which in particular led to no Government rep being part of the “drafting team” where the answers to the public comment were substantively discussed. Hence, I feel that calling this result of reverting to a status quo ante a “consensus” or a “careful balance” is not really an accurate description of the divergence of opinions expressed in this Subgroup nor a reflection of wider community feedback (as recorded in the public comment inputs). Therefore, in my view, it would be fairer to say that we agree to disagree on how to address the mentioned Government inputs and that according to common practice in the CCWG we essentially revert to the prior text adopted by the Subgroup. Hope this helps Best regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 14:07 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Thanks Jorge. The original text to which you objected was: 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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was: 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. The text you propose is: The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community. Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the
draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed
wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different
opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on
August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the
"adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not
handled as an alternative_.
-- 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 David, Thanks very much for your Email. I guess that we have different points of view about how a "stronger recognition" of the UNGP in the FoI (and the Considerations) could look like and what effect it could have. For instance, I feel that there are many belts and suspenders that "protect" against any overexpansion of the HR core value: 1) it is just guiding; 2) the Mission clearly supersedes it; 3) the UNGP are themselves absolutely voluntary; 4) the core value excludes any enforcement, 5) the commitments supersede it; etc etc. But I guess that these "protections" are still seen as not enough by you - maybe this has to do with the incredible creativity and resourcefulness of US lawyers and the fear that they may overcome each and every of these protections... 😉 However, I sincerely believe that a mention that ICANN "the corporation" could take the UNGP as a guide in the fuller implementation of the core value would have been a good step and would have better reflected the diversity of views. But as said, let's let the CCWG Plenary decide on this. And as a Subgroup I feel that it would be fair to say that here we are agreeing to disagree - saying that we have a balance or a consensus on this aspect I think would not reflect the reality. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> Datum: 24. August 2017 um 21:02:17 MESZ An: lists@nielstenoever.net <lists@nielstenoever.net>, ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>, thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net> Betreff: RE: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Niels, Jorge, and members of the HR Subgroup, First, thank you, Jorge, for the explanation of your position in the note below. Since I have consistently on our calls favored not mentioning the UNGP in our report, it seems fair to explain myself on list as well. I applaud the desire to bolster ICANN’s HR efforts with reference to the UNGP – after all the Ruggie Principles represent a principled attempt to get “businesses” to take positive HR steps. My concern is that the UNGP are written for typical businesses and do not take account of ICANN’s unique mission – in fact strict application of the UNGP could undermine ICANN’s mission, in my opinion. I have expressed several concerns along the way but here will just focus on one. Under the UNGP, the responsibility to respect human rights requires that businesses, among other things, seek to mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations or services by their “business relationships,” even if they have not contributed to those impacts. “Business relationships” is a very broad term in the UNGP - including relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services. That must include registrants, among others. And while the UNGP try to accommodate various complexities, they nonetheless provide that If the business enterprise has leverage to prevent or mitigate the adverse impact, it should exercise it. It seems to me this aspect of the UNGP will inappropriately force ICANN into content issues outside its narrow mission. We have to keep in mind that HR-based claims will almost inevitably wind up in front of our new IRP panel. These (at least) seven new panelists will be drawn from legal circles independent of ICANN. There is simply no way to envision how they would interpret reference to the UNGP and no guarantee that this new precedent-setting body might not try to stretch ICANN’s mission to accommodate the UNGP. ICANN has just taken a significant step by explicitly adopting a core value aimed at respecting HR. In my opinion, there is no demonstrable need at present to make reference to the UNGP. If the community in the future discerns that such a need has subsequently arisen, then steps can be taken at that time to consider such a reference as appropriately tailored to take account of ICANN’s uniqueness. By that time, presumably, the IRP panel will have taken shape and have become a little more predictable than it is at the moment. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:06 AM To: lists@nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thomas@rickert.net; thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear Niels, and dear all, thanks very much for your message, Niels. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons for our disagreement, which are twofold. From a substantive point of view, we disagree with the treatment of the inputs coming from Governments during the public comment period. In our view, a balanced result would need to reflect at least some of the legitimate points made in those inputs. Instead what we have as a result is that we stick to the previous status quo and that those inputs are answered quite laconically. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, which after all is the most relevant international voluntary standard, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs. From a procedural point of view I will not reiterate the detailed points made before. Simply put, I am of the view that the process to treat those inputs was not satisfactory in terms of transparence and stakeholder balance/inclusivity, which in particular led to no Government rep being part of the “drafting team” where the answers to the public comment were substantively discussed. Hence, I feel that calling this result of reverting to a status quo ante a “consensus” or a “careful balance” is not really an accurate description of the divergence of opinions expressed in this Subgroup nor a reflection of wider community feedback (as recorded in the public comment inputs). Therefore, in my view, it would be fairer to say that we agree to disagree on how to address the mentioned Government inputs and that according to common practice in the CCWG we essentially revert to the prior text adopted by the Subgroup. Hope this helps Best regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 14:07 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe>; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Thanks Jorge. The original text to which you objected was: 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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was: 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. The text you propose is: The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community. Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the
draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed
wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different
opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on
August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the
"adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not
handled as an alternative_.
-- 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 was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states. Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome. Robin
On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear Jorge,
We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that.
We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation.
The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process.
We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear All, I do not think that governments ever played and games at all. Moreover, it is inappropriate to categorize comments made as being silly. Regards Kavouss On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states.
Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome.
Robin
On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear Jorge,
We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that.
We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation.
The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process.
We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
I whole heartedly disagree. Any government which oppresses civil society domestically cannot be expected to embrace a multistakeholder process that explicitly empowers civil society. It is in their interest to see such a mechanism fail in favor of a mechanism that exclude civil society at a minimum and ideally revert to a multilateral model. Moreover, even non-state actors beholden to such states walk a fine line. This is far from silly, it’s quite rational. Game theory 101. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:37 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Dear All, I do not think that governments ever played and games at all. Moreover, it is inappropriate to categorize comments made as being silly. Regards Kavouss On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states. Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome. Robin
On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> > wrote:
Dear Jorge,
We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that.
We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation.
The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process.
We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> ] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> ; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> ; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe <mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe> ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ; jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> ; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> ; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> ; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> > *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net> >> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> >> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Tiresome, but predictably professional. On 23/08/17 16:26, Robin Gross wrote:
I was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states.
Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome.
Robin
On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Dear Jorge,
We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that.
We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation.
The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process.
We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr@icann.org Cc: thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk; mcastanon@rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thomas@rickert.net; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and welcomed.
I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Niels,
I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
/"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/
My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of yesterday's call.
*1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved" as summarized on the "outcomes"*
There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word "unanimous" _/
Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first intervention).
Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the call._/
*2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *
As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4 participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.
Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.
Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away from these principles.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45 *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Niels,
what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support?
Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
thanks
Jorge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 22:44, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels, what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and how many expressed such explicit support? Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call? thanks Jorge
________________________________
Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Niels, this is my dissenting statement proposal (and may be considered by you as a "minority statement"): -- "The new draft FoI and Considerations documents have factually ignored the comments made during the public comment phase. As a matter of fact no change of any significance has been accepted by the group. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs. Moreover, we have doubts and concerns on the process followed, especially on the lack of transparence in the establishment as well as stakeholder balance and diversity of the so-called "drafting team" established to process the received inputs. Hence, the resulting text does not account for the diversity of views expressed both in the Subgroup and in the public comment period. For this reason as member of this Subgroup and representative of the Swiss Government I would like to disassociate myself from the final draft text prepared by the Subgroup as it fails to adequately reflect the different points of view in the Subgroup and the inputs received during the public comment phase." -- Kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call Human Rights sub-group participants, On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached). The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision. It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so. As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC. 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
DearAll I fully support statements made by the representative of Switzerland and wish my name be added to that statement This process is not transparent nor follow the general principles of health , democratic, inclusiveness of anti stakeholder process under which CCWG must functionrwfards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Aug 2017, at 23:02, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Niels,
this is my dissenting statement proposal (and may be considered by you as a "minority statement"):
--
"The new draft FoI and Considerations documents have factually ignored the comments made during the public comment phase. As a matter of fact no change of any significance has been accepted by the group.
In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs.
Moreover, we have doubts and concerns on the process followed, especially on the lack of transparence in the establishment as well as stakeholder balance and diversity of the so-called "drafting team" established to process the received inputs.
Hence, the resulting text does not account for the diversity of views expressed both in the Subgroup and in the public comment period.
For this reason as member of this Subgroup and representative of the Swiss Government I would like to disassociate myself from the final draft text prepared by the Subgroup as it fails to adequately reflect the different points of view in the Subgroup and the inputs received during the public comment phase."
--
Kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> Datum: 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Human Rights sub-group participants,
On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous consent (documents attached).
The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a consensus decision.
It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
participants (8)
-
Arasteh -
John Laprise -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
McAuley, David -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross