<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
David, <br>
there is a whole section in the bylaw outlining the process for WS2.<br>
Why does HR section establishes something exceptional for Human
Rights is WS2 with quite a high bar instead of referring to WS2
processes? I personally read "Including CO's approval" clause in the
report as a reference that we decided to follow the same process as
in WS1. I believe this is a very reasonable
interpretation,especially when I see that there is a reference to
the WS1 when it comes to the board approval (in the text you cited).<br>
We can not delete the bylaw language, but I agree with Niels and
others that the clause in the text on the approval wasn't meant to
imply the highest possible bar. It was meant to refer to the WS2
processes. There is a whole chapter on the WS2 in the bylaw. So the
question why extraordinary process for HR has been introduced has to
be answered. <br>
Best regards<br>
Tanya <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/04/16 20:12, McAuley, David
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35A914B1BE398440838C7AFFD79D34A201430255@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">In my personal opinion, I think Tatiana
was correct in observing that there can be different
interpretations in this respect.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Here is what the draft bylaw-language in
the proposal provides:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">“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.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Tatiana Tropina<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 24, 2016 4:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws
spotted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I therefore think the bylaw text is consistent with the
intent of the report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"
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"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>