[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue May 3 18:33:01 UTC 2016
Fully disagree to differentiate GAC in any manner
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 May 2016, at 18:58, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets at itic.org> wrote:
>
> +2. This is becoming like the movie 'Groundhog Day.' I move the previous question.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken
>
>> On May 3, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:
>>
>> Fully agree with Greg.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>> On 05/03/2016 05:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>> Responses inline below.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg, my reference was bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 and not 27.
>>>
>>> This seems like an attempt to create an aura of misunderstanding where
>>> there is none. Paragraph 27 is a graphic with (quite clearly) no bullet
>>> points. My reference was a simple typo, nothing more. Hardly worthy of
>>> the lead sentence of your reply.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never written that high standard be applied;
>>>
>>> You seem to be writing exactly that, repeatedly. Unless, I
>>> misunderstand your viewpoint, you contend that the approval of all
>>> Chartering Organizations be required. With the Work Stream 1 Proposal,
>>> it was sufficient that the Proposal had the approval of the ALAC, ASO,
>>> ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC and a non-objection by the GAC. Isn't it your
>>> position that this should be insufficient for the FoI? If so, that is
>>> unquestionably a higher standard.
>>>
>>> I have always quoted what the report clearly stated, which is that
>>> approval of CO was required for the FoI
>>>
>>> I disagree that this is what the report clearly states. You are using
>>> the parenthetical as your sole support for the claim that the CCWG
>>> wanted a heightened level of approval for the FOI. My recollection was
>>> that this parenthetical was put in solely to clarify that the FOI does
>>> not go directly from the WG to the Board, but rather needs a a review by
>>> the COs. I don't think there is any basis for bootstrapping that
>>> statement into a heightened standard of review and approval -- but
>>> apparently you do.
>>>
>>> but you seem to counter that with intent and a reference and I have
>>> told you was rather referring to board's approval process(bullet6
>>> para28). By the way, the phrase "including Chartering Organizations’
>>> approval" was repeated 3 times in that report. It's not just a
>>> coincidence.
>>>
>>> Again, that's the parenthetical. I've dealt with that above and
>>> before. I've asked you for a clear and unequivocal statement that shows
>>> that the CCWG intended to create a unique and higher standard for the
>>> Chartering Organization's review of the FOI. You have not provided
>>> one. Clearly, this is because such a statement does not exist. Again,
>>> given all the time we have spent saying and writing things about levels
>>> of review, it is unimaginable that we would create a higher level of
>>> review with no explanation or discussion. As such, the idea that the
>>> Proposal should be seen as creating such a higher level of review solely
>>> for the FOI is unsupportable.
>>>
>>> They say "iron sharpen iron" as I am not a lawyer, I obviously
>>> cannot convince you on this one ;-). At this point, I will rest my
>>> case since irrespective of what I say and the references I provide
>>> in the report, you counter it with intent and what was said.
>>>
>>> I've dealt with your references, which are roundly unconvincing. At no
>>> point have I relied on "what was said" in the sense of a verbal
>>> utterance. As pointed out before, in colloquial English, it's common to
>>> write that "a report says" something, when what is meant is that
>>> something is written in the report. So again that's an attempt to
>>> create an aura of misunderstanding where there is none.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope my point has been duly noted by the Co-Chairs, irrespective
>>> of route we take it should be based on the decision of the group as
>>> per the charter. Apologies in advance for the upcoming meeting (will
>>> join if I can)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 11:08 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the
>>> Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It
>>> stated the _intent_ behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think
>>> any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our
>>> intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in
>>> indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of
>>> the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to
>>> draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why
>>> paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not
>>> to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with
>>> the following */intent/* in Work Stream 1 recommendations"
>>> [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the
>>> "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be
>>> adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and
>>> it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to
>>> language in a "bylaws" section.
>>>
>>> Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review
>>> by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique
>>> and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and
>>> unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that
>>> the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the
>>> Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the
>>> work of the CCWG.
>>>
>>> Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the
>>> discussion" on this particular point, show me in the
>>> transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of
>>> paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply
>>> parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there
>>> was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference
>>> to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to
>>> create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any
>>> contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
>>>
>>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji
>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you
>>> referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of
>>> which I quote below :
>>>
>>> "...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.”
>>>
>>> OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process
>>> to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge
>>> debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph
>>> 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
>>>
>>> "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
>>> ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is
>>> developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>>> recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering
>>> Organizations’ approval)* and 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*"
>>>
>>> Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet
>>> point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering
>>> Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that
>>> paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just
>>> one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
>>>
>>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the
>>> report, which is the following:
>>>
>>> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP
>>> challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw
>>> until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights
>>> (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work
>>> Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that
>>> *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same
>>> process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed
>>> for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
>>>
>>> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in
>>> the report, and we need to give this effect. The
>>> language in the draft circulated for comment is
>>> inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it
>>> appears to require the positive approval of all
>>> Chartering Organizations, which would be a
>>> _different_ process than the one used for Work Stream 1
>>> recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
>>>
>>> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the
>>> parenthetical about the chartering organizations was
>>> inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All
>>> that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the
>>> FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to
>>> the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering
>>> Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations
>>> were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent
>>> to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed
>>> for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
>>>
>>> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement
>>> that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard
>>> for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm
>>> confident there is no such statement. We spent many,
>>> many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels
>>> of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to
>>> levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies
>>> logic to claim that the simple insertion of a
>>> parenthetical, without any specific discussion or
>>> explanation of a heightened standard, created a
>>> requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> ______
>>> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In
>>> either case, I was referring to the report, not to some
>>> verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial
>>> use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable
>>> to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least
>>> in everyday usage.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends on how you are interpreting the word
>>> "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single
>>> document, while some COs decided to approve/respond
>>> recommendation by recommendation, others approved
>>> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple
>>> application of the report(if you want to avoid round
>>> trips proposed in the report without distorting the
>>> intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single
>>> recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option
>>> to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG
>>> can determine what to do with the FoI based on the
>>> outcome of the COs approval process.
>>>
>>> On your second point, at this juncture I am not
>>> talking about what we said but rather about what we
>>> WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have
>>> not followed the process would rely upon. So do you
>>> want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote"
>>> either of them is fine by me but we should be clear
>>> on the path we have chosen, knowing it's
>>> implications as well.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> At no point did we say that the FoI would be
>>> bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a
>>> complete package. Indeed, we've never said that
>>> any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with
>>> others.
>>>
>>> At no point did we say that there would be a
>>> special process for approving the FoI. It
>>> should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a
>>> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then
>>> allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the
>>> Board even if less than all of the COs approve
>>> of the recommendation.
>>>
>>> As long as we can find ways to reflect that
>>> clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of
>>> the Proposal.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Thomas,
>>>
>>> If I process this correctly, it implies
>>> approval of the FoI will be done based on
>>> ratification process in the CCWG charter,
>>> which is different from approval of the
>>> whole WS2 package as per the charter.
>>>
>>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat
>>> closer to what was proposed in the report
>>> (even though the report did not mention that
>>> CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"
>>> <thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the
>>> end of his latest e-mail:
>>>
>>> I understand that the first proposal
>>> made the approval of all the chartering
>>> organizations necessary, The
>>> modification should keep the reference
>>> to the ratification of the chartering
>>> organizations and add "as defined in the
>>> CCWG charter“.
>>>
>>> Would that be a way forward?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun
>>>> Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Niels,
>>>>
>>>> I think we may just be playing around
>>>> with words here, definitely you
>>>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let
>>>> me attempt to spell out(even though I
>>>> have done this before) my
>>>> understanding of the report which I
>>>> must say is obvious:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase
>>>> "...*including* approval of chartering
>>>> organisations"
>>>>
>>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's
>>>> equivalent to the CO approval within
>>>> CCWG may be out of order because as
>>>> per the charter irrespective of number
>>>> of support from CO, the package goes
>>>> to board for approval.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not
>>>> the same thing as item 1; What I
>>>> understand is that the FoI as a
>>>> critical document it is needs to be
>>>> developed during WS2, approved by the
>>>> CO and incoporated into the WS2
>>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for
>>>> approval as a complete package.
>>>>
>>>> That said, i will again say that if
>>>> the goal is to reflect what was
>>>> written in the report then we are out
>>>> of order. However we may just agree
>>>> that what we have done is correcting a
>>>> *mistake* in the report through the
>>>> bylaw. In that case, we should present
>>>> it as such and not on claims that the
>>>> report did not say approval of CO is
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten
>>>> Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tijani,
>>>>
>>>> But the chartering organizations
>>>> are mentioned in the charter of the
>>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I
>>>> understand your concern.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Niels
>>>>
>>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN
>>>> JEMAA wrote:
>>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>>>
>>>>> The last modification of the
>>>> bylaws proposed by the lawyers
>>>> didn’t make
>>>>> any reference to the chartering
>>>> organizations approval while it is
>>>>> clearly mentioned in the CCWG
>>>> last proposal ratified by the
>>>> chartering
>>>>> organizations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a nice day
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>> Mediterranean Federation of
>>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>>>> +216 52 385 114
>>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels
>>>> ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>>>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net
>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please indicate where
>>>> the proposed text is not
>>>> consistent with
>>>>>> the report? Concrete references
>>>> would be helpful for me to better
>>>>>> understand your point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss
>>>> Arasteh wrote:
>>>>>>> Tijani +1
>>>>>>> I fully agree with Tijani
>>>>>>> People misuse the opportunity
>>>> to make modifications that were
>>>> not agreed
>>>>>>> during the lkast 16 months
>>>>>>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
>>>>>>> During the WSIS I WILL tell
>>>> everybody that there is no
>>>> supervision nor
>>>>>>> control on what we have agreed
>>>> and the people will make whatever
>>>> change
>>>>>>> they wish without the
>>>> agreements of the others
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KAVOUSS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00
>>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>> <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathieu and all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The modification proposed
>>>> doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal
>>>>>>> approved by the chartering
>>>> organization. I don’t think we are
>>>>>>> allowed to write bylaws
>>>> that are not the exact
>>>> interpretation of the
>>>>>>> approved document that had
>>>> the CCWG consensus and the charting
>>>>>>> organizations ratification.
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>>>> Mediterranean Federation of
>>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>>>>>> +216 52 385 114
>>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23,
>>>> Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathieu,
>>>>>>>> Tks
>>>>>>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS
>>>> OBJECTIONS to:
>>>>>>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE
>>>> TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING
>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
>>>>>>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET
>>>> AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH
>>>> YET TO BE
>>>>>>>> DRAFTED.
>>>>>>>> 3. Making so many changes
>>>> to the Third proposals . We must avoid
>>>>>>>> having a new proposal
>>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00
>>>> Mathieu Weill
>>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please find below for
>>>> your consideration some
>>>> suggestions from
>>>>>>>> our lawyers for
>>>> clarification of the bylaw
>>>> language regarding
>>>>>>>> the Human rights FoI.
>>>> This follows our request during the
>>>>>>>> previous call.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathieu Weill
>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>> Depuis mon mobile,
>>>> désolé pour le style
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Début du message
>>>> transféré :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Expéditeur:*
>>>> "Gregory, Holly"
>>>> <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016
>>>> 19:10:53 UTC+2
>>>>>>>>> *Destinataire:*
>>>> "'Mathieu Weill'"
>>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>,
>>>> "'Thomas Rickert'"
>>>>>>>>> <thomas at rickert.net
>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>,
>>>> León Felipe
>>>>>>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>,
>>>> "bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>"
>>>> <bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>>>> <acct-staff at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>,
>>>> "Rosemary E. Fei"
>>>>>>>>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>
>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>>> "ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>"
>>>> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>>>>>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG
>>>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>
>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>
>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>>,
>>>> "Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>"
>>>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Objet:* *Human
>>>> Rights Transition Provision:
>>>> Bylaws Section
>>>>>>>>> 27.3(a)*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and
>>>> Bylaws Coordinating Group:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the CCWG call last
>>>> week, there was a discussion of the
>>>>>>>>> Bylaws language
>>>> regarding the transition provision
>>>> on Human
>>>>>>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)]
>>>> and it was suggested that the
>>>> language be
>>>>>>>>> clarified to ensure
>>>> that the same approval process
>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>> Work Stream 1 would
>>>> apply. We propose the following
>>>>>>>>> clarifying edits. We
>>>> suggest that you share this with the
>>>>>>>>> CCWG and if there is
>>>> agreement, the following proposed edit
>>>>>>>>> should be included in
>>>> the CCWG’s public comment:____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Redline:____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>>>> RIGHTS____*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (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) approved for
>>>> submission to the Board by the
>>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability
>>>> as a consensus recommendation in Work
>>>>>>>>> Stream 2, and (ii)
>>>> approved by each of the
>>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s
>>>> chartering organizations and (iii) the
>>>>>>>>> Board, (in each
>>>> thecase of the Board, using the
>>>> same process
>>>>>>>>> and criteria used by
>>>> the Boardto consider the as for Work
>>>>>>>>> Stream 1
>>>> Recommendations).____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) No person or
>>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>>>>>>>>> reconsideration
>>>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>>>> or the
>>>>>>>>> independent review
>>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>>>>>>>>> solely on the
>>>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>>>> forth in
>>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>>>> contemplated
>>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>>>>>>>> or the Board that
>>>> occurred prior to the____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the
>>>> FOI-HR.____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clean:____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>>>> RIGHTS____*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (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 (i)
>>>> approved
>>>>>>>>> for submission to the
>>>> Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a
>>>>>>>>> consensus
>>>> recommendation in Work Stream 2
>>>> and (ii) approved
>>>>>>>>> by the Board, in each
>>>> case, using the same process and
>>>>>>>>> criteria as for Work
>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations.____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) No person or
>>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>>>>>>>>> reconsideration
>>>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>>>> or the
>>>>>>>>> independent review
>>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>>>>>>>>> solely on the
>>>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>>>> forth in
>>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>>>> contemplated
>>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>>>>>>>> or the Board that
>>>> occurred prior to the____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the
>>>> FOI-HR.____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, ____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Holly and Rosemary____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *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>
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>>>>>>>> www.sidley.com
>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>>>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY
>>>> AUSTIN LLP*____
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <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>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> <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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list