HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- 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, Thank you very much for the hard works I think we need to just send this doc. to the Plenary and let the distinguished co -chairs also do some work and sort out the workable way forward. There is no need to re discuss the matter otherwise the Professional talkers talk and talks and again talks among themselves without listening to others Enough is enough. We have done what we should do . There are duplication and reptation in the Report of WS1and we have to leave it like this . The only thing that we need to do at this satge and even before going to Plenary is the following: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 16:40 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Niels, You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.” Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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>
Brett If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction. If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws. So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated. On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Niels,
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.”
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear All, The qualifier " IF ANY " is pointed to or other instruments/ Regards Kavouss 2017-01-04 18:37 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
Brett
If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction.
If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws.
So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated.
On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Niels,
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.”
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, Incorrect. I offered the amended text on the call and it was clear that it was to apply to both. Best, Brett __________ On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, The qualifier " IF ANY " is pointed to or other instruments/ Regards Kavouss ________________________________ 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/> 2017-01-04 18:37 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>: Brett If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction. If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws. So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated. On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote: Niels, You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/ should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.” Best, Brett ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org> <http://heritage.org/> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> <http://www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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> _______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
Nigel, That was the debate at the time, whether any international HR instrument would/should apply. It was inserted to preserve the possibility that no such legal instrument was appropriate in interpreting the bylaw. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> __________ On Jan 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: Brett If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction. If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws. So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated. On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Niels,
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.”
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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> <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> <http://www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org>>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
Hello Nigel, Kindly find inline: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Jan 2017 6:38 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: Brett If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction. If that were the case, it would be a nullity, SO: Just to clarify, was the intent of the bylaw entry on HR supposed to make ICANN legally bound to some HR requirements? As your comment above seem to imply such (re: nullity) Regards since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws. So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated. On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Niels,
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.”
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear Brett No . your is not correct. There is an " or" between the two parts and the qualifier pointed to the second part not to the first and second. I have no time to get in another series of disputes with colleagues. Regards Good night Kavouss 2017-01-04 19:30 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Nigel,
Kindly find inline:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 4 Jan 2017 6:38 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Brett
If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction.
If that were the case, it would be a nullity,
SO: Just to clarify, was the intent of the bylaw entry on HR supposed to make ICANN legally bound to some HR requirements? As your comment above seem to imply such (re: nullity)
Regards
since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws.
So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated.
On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Niels,
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.”
Best,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 <(202)%20608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Dear CCWG Plenary,
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Kavouss, When there is a dispute like this you consult the email record, transcript and intent of the author of the amendment. Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right. Best, Brett __________ On Jan 4, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Brett No . your is not correct. There is an " or" between the two parts and the qualifier pointed to the second part not to the first and second. I have no time to get in another series of disputes with colleagues. Regards Good night Kavouss ________________________________ 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/> 2017-01-04 19:30 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: Hello Nigel, Kindly find inline: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Jan 2017 6:38 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: Brett If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction. If that were the case, it would be a nullity, SO: Just to clarify, was the intent of the bylaw entry on HR supposed to make ICANN legally bound to some HR requirements? As your comment above seem to imply such (re: nullity) Regards since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws. So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated. On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote: Niels, You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/ should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.” Best, Brett ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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<tel:(202)%20608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org> <http://heritage.org/> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary Dear CCWG Plenary, We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following as it elaborates on the language to be used: • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw. • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights. • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> <http://www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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> _______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!" Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
Gentlemen, Ha!! What's next: ' the ministry of silly walks' ? rd On Jan 4, 2017 4:19 PM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
All, The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23. Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in the email. In Annex 6, *Paragraph 28* (not *Paragraph 14*) contains the operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is another similar paragraph (*Paragraph 7*) in Annex 6, but it's in the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28. Paragraph 7 *does* contain the "if any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 7 reads as follows: o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: § Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. § Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. § Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. § Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. § Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). § Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. § Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Paragraph 28 reads as follows: 28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are: - Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw. - Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. - Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. - Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. - Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. - Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations - Considering how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was never made. Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final version, *Paragraph 24* (not *Paragraph 18*) *does* contain the "if any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads: 24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: · Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. · Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. · Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. · Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). · Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. · Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group. Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes. Greg On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any" modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase. If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a dish is limited to declining the soup. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23. Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in the email.
In Annex 6, *Paragraph 28* (not *Paragraph 14*) contains the operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is another similar paragraph (*Paragraph 7*) in Annex 6, but it's in the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28. Paragraph 7 *does* contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:
- Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw. - Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. - Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. - Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. - Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. - Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations - Considering how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was never made.
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final version, *Paragraph 24* (not *Paragraph 18*) *does* contain the "if any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
This may help http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/lec.pdf On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any" modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.
If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a dish is limited to declining the soup.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23. Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in the email.
In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28. Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:
o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw. o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was never made.
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ 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>
All, The attached document shows the current email and a proposed revised email, which merely changes the texts quoted as suggested in my earlier email. I propose that the revised email be sent to the plenary, with a short note on top that says "Use this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report." (or words to that effect). It may seem picayune, but if we are asking the plenary how to interpret texts, we should give them the right texts. Greg On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
This may help
http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/lec.pdf
On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any" modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.
If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a dish is limited to declining the soup.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23. Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in the email.
In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28. Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:
o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw. o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was never made.
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if
any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ 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>
Dear Leon, First of all, Happy New Year Pls may you kindly comment on the matter as there are a lot of comments by CCWG Researchers . Once again, it reveals that the Final reports lacks coherence in different parts of the report dealing with the same subject. Regards. Kavouss 2017-01-04 23:30 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
The attached document shows the current email and a proposed revised email, which merely changes the texts quoted as suggested in my earlier email. I propose that the revised email be sent to the plenary, with a short note on top that says "Use this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report." (or words to that effect).
It may seem picayune, but if we are asking the plenary how to interpret texts, we should give them the right texts.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
This may help
http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/lec.pdf
On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any" modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.
If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a dish is limited to declining the soup.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23. Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in the email.
In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28. Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:
o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw. o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw. o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols. o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC. o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was never made.
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if
any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights.
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out.
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT CLINIC)
_______________________________________________ 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>
Dear all, Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report. We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12. That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next. In a bit more detail: Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads: Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads: .24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed. In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have. The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options: 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.) We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup. 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw. We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options. The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017. All the best, The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- 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, Dear Neils, Thank you for your message and updates Pls kindly note that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level in other words and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level Homewear, you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR. Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex discussion pros and cones on the issue . Regards Kavouss 2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
.24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Niels's email is addressed to the CCWG-Plenary. With regard to discussions at the subgroup level, the subgroup is the proper place for the primary discussion and interpretation of the subgroup's mandate. The conclusions of the subgroup should then be brought back to the Plenary for approval. If the subgroup cannot agree on an interpretation of the mandate, or if (as here) the subgroup perceived a need for clarification from the Plenary, then (as here), the subgroup should go back to the Plenary for advice. Which is exactly what Niels has done. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Niels, Dear Neils, Thank you for your message and updates Pls kindly note that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level in other words and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level Homewear, you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR. Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex discussion pros and cones on the issue . Regards Kavouss
2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
.24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, With respect to Niels message: My understanding was that Niels asked the subgroup to discuss the interpretation of its mandate . You understood Niels message was addressed to the Plenary for which I fully agree However, if Niels want to discuss the matter at the level of subgroup the following course of action is necessary: 1.The subgroup could start the primary discussion and interpretation of its mandate. 2. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for approval 3. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is not reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for advice. If the above course of action is consented,then the sub group should proceed accordingly Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 1:46 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Niels's email is addressed to the CCWG-Plenary.
With regard to discussions at the subgroup level, the subgroup is the proper place for the primary discussion and interpretation of the subgroup's mandate. The conclusions of the subgroup should then be brought back to the Plenary for approval. If the subgroup cannot agree on an interpretation of the mandate, or if (as here) the subgroup perceived a need for clarification from the Plenary, then (as here), the subgroup should go back to the Plenary for advice. Which is exactly what Niels has done.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Niels, Dear Neils, Thank you for your message and updates Pls kindly note that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level in other words and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level Homewear, you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR. Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex discussion pros and cones on the issue . Regards Kavouss
2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
.24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The CCWG Charter contains the following definitions: *a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection* *b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree* It would be helpful to use these terms, to reflect the Charter and to avoid miscommunication. "Agreement" is not a defined term, and should be avoided. Using the terms above, the proper course of action should read: 1.The subgroup should conduct the primary discussion and interpretation of its mandate. 2. Should Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus) be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the Consensus conclusion of the subgroup) to the attention of Plenary for approval. 3. Should Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus) not be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the alternative conclusions under consideration in the subgroup) to the attention of Plenary for advice, which may include a Consensus conclusion by the Plenary regarding the mandate of the subgroup. 4. The subgroup should proceed accordingly (i.e., follow the mandate approved or decided by the Plenary, or follow the advice of the Plenary if the Plenary only offers advice). Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, With respect to Niels message: My understanding was that Niels asked the subgroup to discuss the interpretation of its mandate . You understood Niels message was addressed to the Plenary for which I fully agree However, if Niels want to discuss the matter at the level of subgroup the following course of action is necessary: 1.The subgroup could start the primary discussion and interpretation of its mandate. 2. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for approval 3. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is not reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for advice. If the above course of action is consented,then the sub group should proceed accordingly Regards Kavouss
2017-01-08 1:46 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Niels's email is addressed to the CCWG-Plenary.
With regard to discussions at the subgroup level, the subgroup is the proper place for the primary discussion and interpretation of the subgroup's mandate. The conclusions of the subgroup should then be brought back to the Plenary for approval. If the subgroup cannot agree on an interpretation of the mandate, or if (as here) the subgroup perceived a need for clarification from the Plenary, then (as here), the subgroup should go back to the Plenary for advice. Which is exactly what Niels has done.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Niels, Dear Neils, Thank you for your message and updates Pls kindly note that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level in other words and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level Homewear, you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR. Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex discussion pros and cones on the issue . Regards Kavouss
2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
.24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Greg, Tks again but the definition for consensus that you have provided Quote *b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"* Unquote Does in no way reflect the meaning of consensus . Pls read Bylaws Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 8:37 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The CCWG Charter contains the following definitions:
*a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection*
*b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree*
It would be helpful to use these terms, to reflect the Charter and to avoid miscommunication. "Agreement" is not a defined term, and should be avoided. Using the terms above, the proper course of action should read:
1.The subgroup should conduct the primary discussion and interpretation of its mandate.
2. Should Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus) be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the Consensus conclusion of the subgroup) to the attention of Plenary for approval.
3. Should Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus) not be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the alternative conclusions under consideration in the subgroup) to the attention of Plenary for advice, which may include a Consensus conclusion by the Plenary regarding the mandate of the subgroup.
4. The subgroup should proceed accordingly (i.e., follow the mandate approved or decided by the Plenary, or follow the advice of the Plenary if the Plenary only offers advice).
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear All, With respect to Niels message: My understanding was that Niels asked the subgroup to discuss the interpretation of its mandate . You understood Niels message was addressed to the Plenary for which I fully agree However, if Niels want to discuss the matter at the level of subgroup the following course of action is necessary: 1.The subgroup could start the primary discussion and interpretation of its mandate. 2. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for approval 3. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft or Rough Consensus) is not reached the subgroup should then bring the matter to the attention of Plenary for advice. If the above course of action is consented,then the sub group should proceed accordingly Regards Kavouss
2017-01-08 1:46 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Niels's email is addressed to the CCWG-Plenary.
With regard to discussions at the subgroup level, the subgroup is the proper place for the primary discussion and interpretation of the subgroup's mandate. The conclusions of the subgroup should then be brought back to the Plenary for approval. If the subgroup cannot agree on an interpretation of the mandate, or if (as here) the subgroup perceived a need for clarification from the Plenary, then (as here), the subgroup should go back to the Plenary for advice. Which is exactly what Niels has done.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Niels, Dear Neils, Thank you for your message and updates Pls kindly note that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level in other words and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level Homewear, you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR. Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex discussion pros and cones on the issue . Regards Kavouss
2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
Dear all,
Please refer to this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw. After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part, from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where we should go next.
In a bit more detail:
Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
.24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider the following as it develops the FOI-HR: Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand, Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of Interpretation we have completed.
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary. 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations listed in Annex 6. 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on what potential next steps could be 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested by the plenary would be helpful.)
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c) chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other options.
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2 with you all in 2017.
All the best,
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to correct it. -- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (7)
-
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Rudolph Daniel -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji