<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
I certainly understand that there can be different interpretations
of the intent of the report. <br>
<br>
The item (ii) of the bylaw in the report says: "<b>consensus
recommendation in Work Stream 2 </b>(including Chartering
Organizations’ approval)". <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Tanya <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6jdSC23wQX8UTgYqTYCY6=SFfT2PLtbKXcxwqpoMygvng@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I therefore think the bylaw text is consistent with
the intent of the report.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 Apr 2016 7:01 p.m., "Niels ten
Oever" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I hope this email finds you well. Upon re-reading the bylaw
text I came<br>
across the following issue which does not seem to be in
accordance with<br>
what we agreed in WS1.<br>
<br>
The CCWG report says where it comes to Human Rights:<br>
<br>
[ccwg report]<br>
<br>
“Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect
internationally<br>
recognized<br>
Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision
does not<br>
create any<br>
additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any<br>
complaint, request,<br>
or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN.
This Bylaw<br>
provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of<br>
Interpretation for Human<br>
Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a
consensus<br>
recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering
Organizations’<br>
approval)<br>
and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the
same<br>
process and<br>
<br>
criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1<br>
recommendations.”<br>
<br>
[/ccwg report]<br>
<br>
But when I look at the bylaw text it says:<br>
<br>
[proposed bylaw]<br>
<br>
The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no
force or<br>
effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for
human rights<br>
(“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i) the CCWG-Accountability as a
consensus<br>
recommendation in Work Stream 2, (ii) each of the
CCWG-Accountability’s<br>
chartering organizations and (iii) the Board (in the case of
the Board,<br>
using the same process and criteria used by the Board to
consider the<br>
Work Stream 1 Recommendations).<br>
<br>
[/proposed bylaw]<br>
<br>
Now it is explicitly required that all Chartering
Organizations approve<br>
the Framework of Interpretation, whereas during WS1 it was
agreed that<br>
for WS2 we would use exactly the same process of approval as
for WS1.<br>
<br>
What makes this even more divergent is that this clause is
only added<br>
for Human Rights in the proposed bylaws and not for any other
bylaw.<br>
Whereas there was no exceptional procedure for human rights
discussed<br>
for WS2.<br>
<br>
What I propose is to refer to the charter of the CCWG on
Accountability<br>
for the decision making of all processes in WS2 (including the
decision<br>
making on the FoI on Human Rights) and not create separate or
new<br>
requirements or processes.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Niels<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.article19.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>