[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted
Niels ten Oever
lists at nielstenoever.net
Tue Apr 26 08:11:16 UTC 2016
Dear all,
Thank you for your great reactions. The proposal by Holly is much better
than what we had in the proposed bylaws, but I have to completely agree
with Gregs worries and proposal underneath, since it leaves no room for
interpretation which will benefit our work in Workstream 2.
So +1 to Greg.
All the best,
Niels
On 04/26/2016 01:08 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Holly and All,
>
> I'm concerned that by reverting to the language in the Proposal, we are
> perpetuating the language that led to confusion in the first place. It
> should be clear that this is a "business as usual" process of Chartering
> Organization review of a CCWG-Accountability consensus recommendations,
> just as was done with the Proposal. i would suggest adding the
> following clarifying language:
>
> “(a) 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 /_(including Chartering
> Organizations’ approval *as set forth in the CCWG-Accountability
> Charter*), and _/ (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).”
>
> I look forward to your thoughts.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Gregory, Holly
> <holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear CCWG-Accountability,
>
> ____
>
> We have been following this email stream and in re-reading the
> language of the Bylaws we understand how the language could be
> misread to call for a standard higher than what is intended.
> Therefore we propose that a clarification would be helpful.
> Specifically, to remove any confusion and help assure that the
> Bylaws are read in a manner that is consistent with the proposal, we
> recommend the following clarifying change to Section 27.3: ____
>
> ____
>
> “(a) 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 /_(including
> Chartering Organizations’ approval), and _/ (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).” ____
>
> __ __
>
> If you agree, we recommend that you include this in the CCWG’s
> public comment. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Kind regards, ____
>
> Holly ____
>
> __ __
>
> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
> Partner and Co-Chair
> Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group____
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
> 787 Seventh Avenue
> New York, NY 10019
> +1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
> holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>
> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *McAuley, David
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 2:12 PM
> *To:* Dr. Tatiana Tropina; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted____
>
> __ __
>
> In my personal opinion, I think Tatiana was correct in observing
> that there can be different interpretations in this respect. ____
>
> __ __
>
> I respectfully don’t think we can now say that decision making
> regarding the FoI in WS2 is simply based on the charter. The charter
> set WS1 in motion and in WS1 we specifically agreed that the HR
> bylaw will not enter into force until, among other things, an FoI is
> developed as a consensus WS2 recommendation “(including Chartering
> Organizations’ approval)” – we cannot delete that quoted bylaw
> language as it means something. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Here is what the draft bylaw-language in the proposal provides:____
>
> __ __
>
> “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.”____
>
> __ __
>
> If that requires further clarity it seems to me that it will need to
> be developed in WS2 given that our charge now is to see if the
> bylaws draft tracks the final proposal. In this respect it appears
> to do so.____
>
> __ __
>
> David McAuley____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Dr. Tatiana Tropina
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 4:42 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted____
>
> __ __
>
> Hi all,
> I certainly understand that there can be different interpretations
> of the intent of the report.
>
> The item (ii) of the bylaw in the report says: "*consensus
> recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering
> Organizations’ approval)".
>
> We have even have different thresholds for consensus in the report
> itself, which one is applicable here? What is the process for
> reaching this consensus? The same as for WS1? Then we might need a
> reference to WS1 may be? Furthermore: will everything developed in
> the WS2 require a full consensus and approval of all COs? I read the
> chapter in the bylaws about WS2 and it refers to the process and
> charter of WS1. No requirement for full consensus or approval of the
> all the COs there. Why does not HR bylaw refer to the previous
> section in the bylaw that specifically outlines the requirements for
> Ws, but introduces the approval of all COs instead? I don't mind
> this, but the clarification seems to be necessary.
>
> Is there already a definition of consensus for the purpose of the
> WS2 and if yes, is it the same that has been introduced for HR FOI
> in HR bylaw text? This is my question.
>
> If the answer is "yes" - then there is no inconsistency. However, I
> agree with Niels that this should be clarified, so we all will be on
> the same page.
>
> Cheers
> Tanya ____
>
> On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun Ojedeji wrote:____
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.article19.org&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=NcvlJyYsf1dukFULmFMt12-UJRg0HtYLbYCN8XiVDjo&e=>
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e=>____
>
>
>
> ____
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list____
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>____
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e=>____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that
> is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and
> any attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list