[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

Are you saying that the bylaw text is different from the intent of the
report as I don't think that is the case. The report indeed required
approval of the CO which was rightly reflected as item ii in the bylaw text.

I therefore think the bylaw text is consistent with the intent of the
report.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 24 Apr 2016 7:01 p.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> I hope this email finds you well. Upon re-reading the bylaw text I came
> across the following issue which does not seem to be in accordance with
> what we agreed in WS1.
>
> The CCWG report says where it comes to Human Rights:
>
> [ccwg report]
>
>  “Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect internationally
> recognized
>  Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision does not
> create any
>  additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any
> complaint, request,
>  or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN. This Bylaw
>  provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of
> Interpretation for Human
>  Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>  recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’
> approval)
>  and (2) 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.”
>
> [/ccwg report]
>
> But when I look at the bylaw text it says:
>
> [proposed bylaw]
>
> The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or
> effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights
> (“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i) the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
> recommendation in Work Stream 2, (ii) each of the CCWG-Accountability’s
> chartering organizations and (iii) the Board (in the case of the Board,
> using the same process and criteria used by the Board to consider the
> Work Stream 1 Recommendations).
>
> [/proposed bylaw]
>
> Now it is explicitly required that all Chartering Organizations approve
> the Framework of Interpretation, whereas during WS1 it was agreed that
> for WS2 we would use exactly the same process of approval as for WS1.
>
> What makes this even more divergent is that this clause is only added
> for Human Rights in the proposed bylaws and not for any other bylaw.
> Whereas there was no exceptional procedure for human rights discussed
> for WS2.
>
> What I propose is to refer to the charter of the CCWG on Accountability
> for the decision making of all processes in WS2 (including the decision
> making on the FoI on Human Rights) and not create separate or new
> requirements or processes.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160424/7cf7284b/attachment.html>