[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions

Sun Jan 17 09:00:09 UTC 2016

Exactly.

This is why it has to be included.

On 16/01/16 23:14, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had understood that much of the opposition expressed by those
> supporting B had to do with the fear of legal action.  Since that fear
> seems not to be fact based, I was thinking some of that opposition has
> been answered.
>
> There is also the fact that with the departure of NTIA we have no
> backstop for the human rights obligations of the open internet without
> declaring a corporate commitment to human rights.  This is not one of
> those nice to have Accountability changes made while there is a chance.
> This is a direct necessity based on losing the governmental backstop,
> given their obligation for human rights (whatever we think of their
> implementation of their governmental responsibilities).
>
> avri
>
> On 16-Jan-16 15:59, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>> Some facts:
>>
>>    * it wasn’t only the board who expressed concerns: some other
>>      comments did
>>    * on the call, there were different views expressed: some were for
>>      option A, others for option B and most for option C
>>    * Option C is a compromise between A and B
>>
>>
>> Other facts:
>>
>>    * the issue of Human rights was raised at the beginning of our
>>      works, and the position of the CCWG members was « since ICANN is
>>      about names and numbers, and has nothing to do with the content,
>>      no need to address this issue ».
>>    * It was raised again I think in Paris meeting, and the decision was
>>      to address it in work stream 2. and under the insistence of some,
>>      the CCWG decided to have a very high level mention on the issue in
>>      the proposal of Work Stream 1.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> Executive Director
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>              +216 52 385 114
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Le 16 janv. 2016 à 20:04, Schaefer, Brett
>>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> __________
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Brett Schaefer
>>> 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
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/>
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever
>>>>> <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>>>> <mailto: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,
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>
>>>>> 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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>>
>>>>> Article 19
>>>>> www.article19.org
>>>>> <http://www.article19.org/><http://www.article19.org
>>>>> <http://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
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus%3Chttps://www.avast.com/antivirus%3E>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>