Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below. I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think. Best, Niels On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear all,
Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup.
Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red):
“/By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation*. */
*/The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*
The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.
I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 *An:* turcotte.bernard@gmail.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
Dear all,
Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion* attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.
The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles).
However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments.
Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.
Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call_.
I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.
For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Bernard Turcotte *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 *An:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
All,
Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.
As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).
Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*
* *
1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior
2. Review of Agenda
3. Administration
3.1.Review timeline.
3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.
3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi
4. Legal Committee Update
4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).
4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group.
5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)
6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)
7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached)
8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached)
9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues)
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email)
10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email)
11.AOB
12.Next Plenaries
12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC
12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC
13.Adjournment
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I will not be on the call so provide my views below. I am not sure this proposed insertion of text does much and is far more prescriptive than anything we have in the FOI. I would recall that we have the following in the Considerations, which is more than adequate and does not in any way preclude the use of the Ruggie principles. "With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations." In our work we were deliberately cautious, for many of the reasons David has outlined in prior e-mails. Those concerns remain as far as I am concerned. Matthew On 28/09/2017 10:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below.
I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think.
Best,
Niels
On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear all,
Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup.
Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red):
“/By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation*. */
*/The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*
The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.
I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 *An:* turcotte.bernard@gmail.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
Dear all,
Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion* attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.
The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles).
However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments.
Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.
Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call_.
I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.
For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Bernard Turcotte *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 *An:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
All,
Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.
As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).
Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*
**
1.Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior
2.Review of Agenda
3.Administration
3.1.Review timeline.
3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.
3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi
4.Legal Committee Update
4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).
4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group.
5.Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)
6.Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)
7.First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached)
8.First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached)
9.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues)
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email)
10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email)
11.AOB
12.Next Plenaries
12.1.Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC
12.2.Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.3.Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.4.Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC
13.Adjournment
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
-- Matthew Shears matthew@intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears
I agree with Matthew. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:51 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences I will not be on the call so provide my views below. I am not sure this proposed insertion of text does much and is far more prescriptive than anything we have in the FOI. I would recall that we have the following in the Considerations, which is more than adequate and does not in any way preclude the use of the Ruggie principles. "With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations." In our work we were deliberately cautious, for many of the reasons David has outlined in prior e-mails. Those concerns remain as far as I am concerned. Matthew On 28/09/2017 10:43, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below. I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think. Best, Niels On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear all, Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup. Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red): “By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention. I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent. Best regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 An: turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 Dear all, Regarding agenda point 8 and specifically the dissenting opinion attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this. The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles). However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular, that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period. Hence, I would suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call. I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback. For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same time the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible. Kind regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 All, Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary. As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands). Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration 3.1. Review timeline. 3.2. Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi. 3.3. Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi 4. Legal Committee Update 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). 4.2. Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group. 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary) 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary) 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached) 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached) 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email) 10. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email) 11. AOB 12. Next Plenaries 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC 13. Adjournment _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> -- Matthew Shears matthew@intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com> +447712472987 Skype:mshears
Sorry for the last minute email - I am travelling. I first of all do not accept the changes proposed last minute before the plenary and unilaterally. Secondly, I think the text was more balanced before. I do not understand why we will discuss last minute proposals on the plenary call if we haven't discussed them in the group properly. I assume the only way for me to go is to object on the plenary call. Cheers, Tanya On 28/09/17 15:57, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
I agree with Matthew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears *Sent:* Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:51 AM *To:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
I will not be on the call so provide my views below.
I am not sure this proposed insertion of text does much and is far more prescriptive than anything we have in the FOI.
I would recall that we have the following in the Considerations, which is more than adequate and does not in any way preclude the use of the Ruggie principles.
"With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations."
In our work we were deliberately cautious, for many of the reasons David has outlined in prior e-mails. Those concerns remain as far as I am concerned.
Matthew
On 28/09/2017 10:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise proposal below.
I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think.
Best,
Niels
On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup.
Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red):
“/By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation*. */
*/The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*
The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.
I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 *An:* turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
Dear all,
Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion* attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.
The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles).
However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments.
Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.
Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call_.
I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.
For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Bernard Turcotte *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 *An:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
All,
Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.
As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).
Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*
* *
1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior
2. Review of Agenda
3. Administration
3.1.Review timeline.
3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.
3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi
4. Legal Committee Update
4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).
4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group.
5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)
6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)
7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached)
8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached)
9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues)
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email)
10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group.
o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email)
11.AOB
12.Next Plenaries
12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC
12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule)
12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC
13.Adjournment
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Image removed by sender. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...>
Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
--
Matthew Shears matthew@intpolicy.com <mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com> +447712472987 Skype:mshears
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
participants (4)
-
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Matthew Shears -
Niels ten Oever -
Schaefer, Brett