Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
Dear all, Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is. All the best, Niels -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Dear all, The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2. The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also. The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced. Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary. Best regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León
Dear all, I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do I believe it makes bylaw operational. The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this problem. So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we have to include. Happy to hear other opinions. Warm regards Tanya On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is.
All the best,
Niels
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear all,
The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.
The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.
The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced.
Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations.
Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary.
Best regards,
Thomas, Mathieu and León
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
This is a good summary of where we are. On 27/01/17 11:40, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear all,
I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do I believe it makes bylaw operational.
The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this problem.
So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we have to include.
Happy to hear other opinions.
Warm regards
Tanya
On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is.
All the best,
Niels
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear all,
The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.
The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.
The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced.
Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations.
Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary.
Best regards,
Thomas, Mathieu and León
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
I think we have to be careful in how we interpret Annex 12. It says: "... 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..." The bullets in Annex 12 are things to consider in elaborating the language that we use in the FoI, not questions that have to be answered. Have we considered the issues raised in Annex 12? Yes, to a greater or lesser degree and I suspect that we have touched upon all of them a number of times in our various discussions. I think we need to agree on an approach as to how we should account for the bullets. Have we addressed them - considered them - enough as we were writing the FoI? And if they are not accounted for in some form in the FoI do we write a para on each saying what the result of our considerations were? Also, and this may be an issue of interpretation, but I always understood that the FoI does not operationalize the bylaw. It provides context and guidance as to how it should be interpreted. Operationalizing the bylaw - or how it is implemented - is what some of those bullets are getting at in Annex 12 - and those are issues beyond the FoI. That is what I thought we were starting to address before we asked the CCWG for guidance (which has, I believe, great merit). Matthew On 27/01/2017 13:06, Nigel Roberts wrote:
This is a good summary of where we are.
On 27/01/17 11:40, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear all,
I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do I believe it makes bylaw operational.
The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this problem.
So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we have to include.
Happy to hear other opinions.
Warm regards
Tanya
On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is.
All the best,
Niels
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear all,
The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.
The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.
The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced.
Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations.
Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary.
Best regards,
Thomas, Mathieu and León
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
Matt, Let's ask ourselves: what is the reason that we have a dormant bylaw? The reason is that there were concerns raised that it creates too much of uncertainty with regard to how interpret it and what the consequences are. Now let's ask ourselves: does this FoI we drafted addresses the concerns? Does it even address all the bullet points from the Annex 12? Can you really honestly answer "yes"? And if it doesn't address all the bullet points, can we seriously say that we considered all the points in the group, had an open discussion and decided - one by one - which of them are outside of our mandate and can't be addressed? We had some broad discussion in the beginning, where many of the group members raised different issues. We said - oh let us draft this text first, the broad interpretation, and then we go to the particular issues. The drafting on this text has been considered as a way to move on and then answer different questions. There were many issues in two or three documents we have in the beginning. I remember how they were "resolved" - by just pressing the button "resolve the comment" in the google doc. This was it. While I am proud of what has been achieved by our small drafting team and I think the text of FoI for the purpose of interpretation of the bylaw *text* fulfills the task, I believe this was just one of the tasks. I do not see how this FoI wakes the bylaw up, how it addresses the primary concerns that were the reasons for making it dormant. As to Annex 12 bullet points, as you said we touched them to a greater or lesser degree. Which one are touched to a lesser degree? Was this lesser degree enough really to elaborate on them? Have we discuss the bullet points one by one? No, I don't think we have to redraft what we have written, but we have to revise it and add conclusions for other bullet points. If we are tasked to develop only one document - which FoI - it has to address all the points. And we we think they are irrelevant or have to be touched to a lesser degree - we have to state it in the document. Warm regards Tanya On 27/01/17 15:47, matthew shears wrote:
I think we have to be careful in how we interpret Annex 12. It says:
"... 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..."
The bullets in Annex 12 are things to consider in elaborating the language that we use in the FoI, not questions that have to be answered. Have we considered the issues raised in Annex 12? Yes, to a greater or lesser degree and I suspect that we have touched upon all of them a number of times in our various discussions.
I think we need to agree on an approach as to how we should account for the bullets. Have we addressed them - considered them - enough as we were writing the FoI? And if they are not accounted for in some form in the FoI do we write a para on each saying what the result of our considerations were?
Also, and this may be an issue of interpretation, but I always understood that the FoI does not operationalize the bylaw. It provides context and guidance as to how it should be interpreted. Operationalizing the bylaw - or how it is implemented - is what some of those bullets are getting at in Annex 12 - and those are issues beyond the FoI. That is what I thought we were starting to address before we asked the CCWG for guidance (which has, I believe, great merit).
Matthew
On 27/01/2017 13:06, Nigel Roberts wrote:
This is a good summary of where we are.
On 27/01/17 11:40, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear all,
I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do I believe it makes bylaw operational.
The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this problem.
So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we have to include.
Happy to hear other opinions.
Warm regards
Tanya
On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is.
All the best,
Niels
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: CCWG Accountability<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear all,
The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.
The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.
The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced.
Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations.
Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary.
Best regards,
Thomas, Mathieu and León
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear all I feel that the public comment on the FoI and the inputs to be received are really key and may impact on our consideration of this reply, especially this element: "Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary." BTW: is there any info on when the public comment will start? Did I miss the announcement? Thanks for any info on my questions and kind regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Januar 2017 09:43 An: ws2-hr@icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Dear all, Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the co-chairs to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what your initial reaction is. All the best, Niels -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600 From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Dear all, The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2. The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group between Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to Annex 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense from a consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also. The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could actually have on the FOI that has been produced. Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there was no objection from the plenary. Best regards, Thomas, Mathieu and León
participants (5)
-
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
matthew shears -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts