[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions
Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Sat Jan 16 19:04:30 UTC 2016
Agree with this. In addition to the Board's comments being the focus for the rec discussions (at least it appears that way to me) it seems like unless a comment is raised during the Adobe it is considered resolved. Not all commenters participate in the Adobe chats, but that should not mean their comments should be dismissed or downplayed.
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
Was also noticing how little time we spend stepping through all the
comments and answering them. Was wondering how we were coming to
consensus before having done so.
Don't wee need to have a response for all the comments on this draft?
Given that we are using the process we are using, perhaps for each
recommendation we are approaching consensus on we should check against
the comments to see what we may be missing. Each recommendation as it
nears completion could be taken by a few volunteers and checked against
the comments on that recommendation. These small teams could take
responsibility for drafting the responses as well.
I do not dispute the importance of coming to agreement with the Board,
but we must also deal with the rest of the comments in an proper
manner. Especially on areas where finding an agreement point with the
Board is challenging, the comments of the community can give us
direction and an sasist.
On 15-Jan-16 18:50, Robin Gross wrote:
> I agree and am concerned about the degree of automatic deference and preference for board desired outcomes over CCWG - Accountability participants and public comments in the organization of these discussions. For some reason, these discussions seem to each focus on the board objectives and comments and almost no attention to the comments of any other stakeholder. Let’s not forget many members of the public filed comments last month, expecting them to be discussed and incorporated. But it looks like the only concerns placed before us for consideration are the board comments/objectives. Let’s not forget the others!
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>> Dear co-chairs (an all),
>> I am quite surprised by your proposal to invite members and board to
>> consider option C since WP4 and CCWG achieved consensus on option A,
>> which was reinforced by the independent lawyers advice. I really don't
>> think this work should be disregarded.
>> The ICANN lawyers did not provide examples, case-law or other documents
>> to outline any risk. So even though I am very willing to discuss, I see
>> no reason to only consider option C and I am very surprised that you as
>> co-chairs argue for that option even though consensus was reached
>> earlier on option A. As I said in my previous email, it is not
>> reasonable to consider option C before we agree that we won't proceed
>> with the option A.
>> All the best,
>> On 01/15/2016 05:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
>>> _Sent on behalf of CoChairs _
>>> Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call
>>> #76. The updated document is attached.
>>> 1.Agreement to rely on target dates instead of hard deadlines, in line
>>> with general approach agreed for WS2
>>> 2. Discussed comments (including Icann Board, RrSG…) requesting that the
>>> inclusion of human rights language into the bylaws be delayed until the
>>> proposed framework of interpretation was completed or even only be
>>> considered in Work Stream 2.
>>> a.Independent lawyer input has been provided and concludes : While
>>> the addition of the proposed human rights bylaw provision should not
>>> increase the exposure of ICANN to legal liability, we recognize that
>>> special interest groups and individuals might seek to bring
>>> non-meritorious claims, but the risk of meritless claims is already
>>> a risk that ICANN faces.
>>> b. Board clarified that concern included risk that IRP would
>>> interpret the Bylaw language and create “case law policy” while the
>>> FoI is finalized.
>>> c. Consider Lawyer input suggestion as follows :
>>> i. “ /expressly limiting the jurisdiction of any internal
>>> dispute resolution systems within ICANN (such as the IRP) to
>>> preclude claims of human rights violations that are not grounded
>>> in a specific violation of an applicable law”./
>>> 3. Members and Board are invited to consider whether option c) could be
>>> an acceptable way forward
>>> a. Confirm recommendation bylaw language as part of WS1, despite
>>> concerns expressed
>>> b. Defer bylaw language adoption to WS2, when FoI is finalized
>>> c. Adopt adjusted bylaw language as part of WS1 to clarify that it
>>> can only be enforced or used in an IRP once the FoI is approved
>>> (Such as : “This articles becomes effective 30 days after approval
>>> of the FoI…”).
>>> Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 19 January.
>>> Best regards
>>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>> Article 19
>> 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>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community