Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed. I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw. I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc., Regards Kavouss 2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Dear Niels and all

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call.

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J

Kind regards

Jorge

*Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>; ws2-hr@icann.org *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear Niels

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the *interpretation *of the Bylaw."

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.

Therefore I would propose the following text:

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the *interpretation *of the Bylaw."

Hope you may take this on board.

regards

Jorge

------------------------------

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda for the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last week. With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously discussed, the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the FoI upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as the document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Dear Niels, I understand that the question referring to GAC Advice then pls add the same text to the Policy development under GNSO and CCNSO by replacing GAC by these two entities. I have proposed that version earlier but you did not consider it. What I wish is to treat all entities providing Recommendations and Advice EQUALY. Some GNSO, IPC, ccNSO participants pushing to marginalize GAC again. Pls kindly understand the problem Regards Kavouss 2017-02-28 12:38 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:

Dear Kavouss,

On 02/28/2017 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed.

The consideration is responding to a direct question about the GAC, that is why only GAC is explicitly mentioned there.

...

I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw.

OK, I propose that we consistently use Human Rights Core Value, so that there will be no confusion about what is meant.

...

I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc.,

Thanks,

Niels

...

Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear Niels and all____

__ __

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).____

__ __

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…____

__ __

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call. ____

__ __

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J____

__ __

Kind regards____

__ __

Jorge ____

__ __

__ __

__ __

*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear Niels____

__ __

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:____

__ __

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.____

__ __

Therefore I would propose the following text:____

__ __

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

Hope you may take this on board.____

__ __

regards____

__ __

Jorge____

__ __

__ __

------------------------------------------------------------

---

...

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda

for

...

the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last

week.

...

With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously

discussed,

...

the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the

FoI

...

upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as

the

...

document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by

the

...

drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

...

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit>

...

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9____

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

GAC absolutely does, from a practical standpoint, develop policies. It is mandated to advise the ICANN Board with respect to public policy and that results in policy recommendations. These public policy recommendations have special effect under the ByLaws when they are Consensus policies as to which the Board is advised. It is fiction that the GAC does not develop policy. Public policy is the role of the GAC. It directly affects gTLD policy. Otherwise, no GAC safeguards would exist as to certain strings, e.g. .bank, etc. etc. etc. Thank goodness for the GAC. Consumers would be in big trouble without the GAC and consumer trust and confidence is already challenged on the Internet. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:49 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC Dear Kavouss, There are no policies developed in the GAC, so this makes the GAC different from the GNSO, CCNSO, and ASO, right? Best, Niels On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear Niels, I understand that the question referring to GAC Advice then pls add the same text to the Policy development under GNSO and CCNSO by replacing GAC by these two entities. I have proposed that version earlier but you did not consider it. What I wish is to treat all entities providing Recommendations and Advice EQUALY. Some GNSO, IPC, ccNSO participants pushing to marginalize GAC again. Pls kindly understand the problem Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 12:38 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:

...

Dear Kavouss,

On 02/28/2017 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed.

The consideration is responding to a direct question about the GAC, that is why only GAC is explicitly mentioned there.

...

I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw.

OK, I propose that we consistently use Human Rights Core Value, so that there will be no confusion about what is meant.

...

I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc.,

Thanks,

Niels

...

Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear Niels and all____

__ __

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).____

__ __

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…____

__ __

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call. ____

__ __

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J____

__ __

Kind regards____

__ __

Jorge ____

__ __

__ __

__ __

*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear Niels____

__ __

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:____

__ __

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.____

__ __

Therefore I would propose the following text:____

__ __

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

Hope you may take this on board.____

__ __

regards____

__ __

Jorge____

__ __

__ __

------------------------------------------------------------

---

...

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda

for

...

the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last

week.

...

With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously

discussed,

...

the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the

FoI

...

upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as

the

...

document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by

the

...

drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

...

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit>

...

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9____

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

I generally agree with Bastiaan's remarks and particularly with regard to the discussion of the UNGPs. (On one point, I assume I am reading correctly that he is saying that we shouldn't try to parse through the UNGPs, which is where we have run aground at least once). It would be great if he could get these suggestions into the Google Doc. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:

Hi Anne,

In Article 1, Principles 2 of GAC Operating Principles:

______________

Principle 2

The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board. The GAC is not a decision making body. Such advice given by the GAC shall be without prejudice to the responsibilities of any public authority with regard to the bodies and activities of ICANN, including the Supporting Organisations and Councils.

______________

The GAC advises on policies, and does not create them. I think other interpretations might leads us into long complicated discussions.

Best,

Niels

On 02/28/2017 09:03 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

...

GAC absolutely does, from a practical standpoint, develop policies. It is mandated to advise the ICANN Board with respect to public policy and that results in policy recommendations. These public policy recommendations have special effect under the ByLaws when they are Consensus policies as to which the Board is advised.

It is fiction that the GAC does not develop policy. Public policy is the role of the GAC. It directly affects gTLD policy. Otherwise, no GAC safeguards would exist as to certain strings, e.g. .bank, etc. etc. etc. Thank goodness for the GAC. Consumers would be in big trouble without the GAC and consumer trust and confidence is already challenged on the Internet. Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:49 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear Kavouss,

There are no policies developed in the GAC, so this makes the GAC different from the GNSO, CCNSO, and ASO, right?

Best,

Niels

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, I understand that the question referring to GAC Advice then pls add the same text to the Policy development under GNSO and CCNSO by replacing GAC by these two entities. I have proposed that version earlier but you did not consider it. What I wish is to treat all entities providing Recommendations and Advice EQUALY. Some GNSO, IPC, ccNSO participants pushing to marginalize GAC again. Pls kindly understand the problem Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 12:38 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:

...

Dear Kavouss,

On 02/28/2017 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed.

The consideration is responding to a direct question about the GAC, that is why only GAC is explicitly mentioned there.

...

I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw.

OK, I propose that we consistently use Human Rights Core Value, so that there will be no confusion about what is meant.

...

I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc.,

Thanks,

Niels

...

Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear Niels and all____

__ __

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).____

__ __

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…____

__ __

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call. ____

__ __

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J____

__ __

Kind regards____

__ __

Jorge ____

__ __

__ __

__ __

*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear Niels____

__ __

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:____

__ __

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.____

__ __

Therefore I would propose the following text:____

__ __

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

Hope you may take this on board.____

__ __

regards____

__ __

Jorge____

__ __

__ __

------------------------------------------------------------

---

...

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda

for

...

the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last

week.

...

With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously

discussed,

...

the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the

FoI

...

upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as

the

...

document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by

the

...

drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

...

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit>

...

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9____

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

--

Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

-- 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

Bastiaan, I think the proposed "interpretation" text is confusing because it is trying to deliver the "no consensus" (and therefore "no recommendation") conclusion on the UNGPs in a very gentle way, to the point where it may not be understood. I think the proposed "implementation" text (which is even more in flux) is confusing because it is trying to embrace several contradictory thoughts simultaneously, but without melding those into a "consensus" or "no consensus" finding. Perhaps there is also a blurring of the concept of "implementing the Bylaw" vs. the broader concept of "implementing Human Rights approaches at ICANN" beyond what may be needed to implement the Bylaw as such., Hopefully, we will untangle these threads as we move forward. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Bastiaan Goslings < bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:

Thanks Greg - I will try to incorporate my suggestions in the doc asap-ish.

And, yes:

...

I assume I am reading correctly that he is saying that we shouldn’t try to parse through the UNGPs

That is correct.

I furthermore feel that the current draft ‘considerations’ text is confusing: a.o. with regard to potentially using (parts of) the UNGPs either for interpreting the Core Value (for which there is no consensus in the group) or implementation purposes (for which it is unclear to me whether there is consensus in the group although the text suggest the UNGPs can be used for implementation). And that in combination with the ‘the use of the Guiding Principles as potential guidance has to be carefully considered’ by each constituency. The ‘potential guidance’ not only sounds like ‘interprete’ to me. I’m also not sure if the ‘has to be carefully considered’ is applicable when an SO/AC itself decides to use (parts of) the UNGPs, or if it means that, as an obligation, it has to consider these UNGPs. Albeit ‘carefully’.

-Bastiaan

...

On 1 Mar 2017, at 16:46, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I generally agree with Bastiaan's remarks and particularly with regard to the discussion of the UNGPs. (On one point, I assume I am reading correctly that he is saying that we shouldn't try to parse through the UNGPs, which is where we have run aground at least once). It would be great if he could get these suggestions into the Google Doc.

Greg

Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote: Hi Anne,

In Article 1, Principles 2 of GAC Operating Principles:

______________

Principle 2

The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board. The GAC is not a decision making body. Such advice given by the GAC shall be without prejudice to the responsibilities of any public authority with regard to the bodies and activities of ICANN, including the Supporting Organisations and Councils.

______________

The GAC advises on policies, and does not create them. I think other interpretations might leads us into long complicated discussions.

Best,

Niels

On 02/28/2017 09:03 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

...

GAC absolutely does, from a practical standpoint, develop policies. It is mandated to advise the ICANN Board with respect to public policy and that results in policy recommendations. These public policy recommendations have special effect under the ByLaws when they are Consensus policies as to which the Board is advised.

It is fiction that the GAC does not develop policy. Public policy is the role of the GAC. It directly affects gTLD policy. Otherwise, no GAC safeguards would exist as to certain strings, e.g. .bank, etc. etc. etc. Thank goodness for the GAC. Consumers would be in big trouble without the GAC and consumer trust and confidence is already challenged on the Internet. Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:49 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear Kavouss,

There are no policies developed in the GAC, so this makes the GAC different from the GNSO, CCNSO, and ASO, right?

Best,

Niels

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, I understand that the question referring to GAC Advice then pls add the same text to the Policy development under GNSO and CCNSO by replacing GAC by these two entities. I have proposed that version earlier but you did not consider it. What I wish is to treat all entities providing Recommendations and Advice EQUALY. Some GNSO, IPC, ccNSO participants pushing to marginalize GAC again. Pls kindly understand the problem Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 12:38 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:

...

Dear Kavouss,

On 02/28/2017 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed.

The consideration is responding to a direct question about the GAC, that is why only GAC is explicitly mentioned there.

...

I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw.

OK, I propose that we consistently use Human Rights Core Value, so that there will be no confusion about what is meant.

...

I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc.,

Thanks,

Niels

...

Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear Niels and all____

__ __

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).____

__ __

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…____

__ __

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call. ____

__ __

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J____

__ __

Kind regards____

__ __

Jorge ____

__ __

__ __

__ __

*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear Niels____

__ __

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:____

__ __

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.____

__ __

Therefore I would propose the following text:____

__ __

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."____

__ __

Hope you may take this on board.____

__ __

regards____

__ __

Jorge____

__ __

__ __

------------------------------------------------------------

---

...

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><ws2-

hr@icann.org

...

<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____

__ __

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda

for

...

the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last

week.

...

With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously

discussed,

...

the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the

FoI

...

upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the

call.

...

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as

the

...

document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by

the

...

drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

...

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O

i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit>

...

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9____

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

--

Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Hello Kavouss, I suggested on gdocs a little edits that may address the point you raised Regards On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com

wrote:

Dear Niels, Thank you very much for the file. I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed. I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights mentioned in Bylaw. I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the doc., Regards Kavouss

2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

...

Dear Niels and all

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call.

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J

Kind regards

Jorge

*Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>; ws2-hr@icann.org *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear Niels

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the *interpretation *of the Bylaw."

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.

Therefore I would propose the following text:

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the *interpretation *of the Bylaw."

Hope you may take this on board.

regards

Jorge

------------------------------

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <ws2-hr@icann.org> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda for the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last week. With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously discussed, the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the FoI upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as the document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7 x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Dear Niels, Jorge and colleagues I have continued to read the stream of emails of this list over the last months with great attention. This document (as it is or may be amended by Jorge) I think is a good balance between the need to implement the bylaw and the complexity of the issues when raised. I just wanted to confirm that I think this language, and the subsidiarity process of ACs and SOs etc interpreting the bylaw requirement as it applies to their circumstances, lessens significantly the operational risks I raised at an earlier time. I would be willing to support this approach. Best Paul Paul Twomey On 2/28/17 2:26 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear Niels and all

Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of the document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which I have also included in the Google Doc).

It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as they always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of the meetings…

Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board during today’s call.

@staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was there J

Kind regards

Jorge

*Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38 *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>; ws2-hr@icann.org *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear Niels

While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I disagree with the wording of this sentence:

"However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."

The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement - which is the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient support" mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there was some sort of voting, which was not the case.

Therefore I would propose the following text:

"However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the application of the UN Guiding Principles for the /interpretation /of the Bylaw."

Hope you may take this on board.

regards

Jorge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ *An:* ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org><ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft agenda for the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.

The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session last week. With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.

I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the Considerations document with you in the call. As previously discussed, the Consideration document will be merged into one document with the FoI upon approval by the subgroup.

I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the call.

Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as well as the document.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document prepared by the drafting team 3. AOB

The document can also be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3Oi5NYwN4AItZ...

Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.

All the best,

Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com