[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted

[Corinne Cath]

+ 1 James

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:23 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> No if that was the case there would not be a number of people pointing
> this out.
>
> I agree with Neils Milton and Jorge that this is not an accurate
> reflection of the proposal and needs to be changed
>
>
>
>
> On 25/04/2016, 08:33, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear All,
> >Both texts say he same things but in a more structured manner
> >Kavouss.
> >
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 25 Apr 2016, at 08:58, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> >>
> >> What do OUR lawyers have to say, who,signed off on this after all?
> >>
> >> el
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
> >>
> >>> On 25 Apr 2016, at 07:19, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> If I did not misunderstand the intent of the CCWG report, it was
> intended to follow the same consensus-building method as for ws1 (and any
> other ccwg) recommendations. Hence, I feel Niels is right in that the draft
> Bylaws seem to establish a higher threshold.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Jorge
> >>>
> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels
> ten Oever
> >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. April 2016 20:01
> >>> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160425/af6e9018/attachment-0001.html>