<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Greg,<br>
thanks a lot. Well said. <br>
I was even thinking of digging out the calls transcripts and the
email exchanges to show that there was no intent to establish a
special process or to raise the level of approval, and to confirm
what we discussed many times: the HR-FOI shall follow the same
process as WS1 recommendations.<br>
So I can only say +1 to your well-stated position: the text proposed
by you does not change the report.<br>
Best regards<br>
Tanya <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/04/16 19:20, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTgBSp8a-DRZ5ocQPhw7p4saJAneQjv4D_RsRWpuzg6pg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My revision is NOT
inconsistent with the Supplemental Final Proposal and does NOT
"change the report."</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The Proposal states, no
less than 3 times, that<b> "<span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">acceptance
of the FOI-HR will require the same process as for Work
Stream 1 recommendations (as agreed for all Work Stream 2
recommendations)":</span></b></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br>
</span></b></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">In
Para. 168; Annex 6, Para. 5; and Annex 6, Para. 19, the
following language is repeated verbatim<b>:</b></span> <span
style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">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).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This clearly shows the
group's intent regarding the drafting of a Bylaw, which is
that <b>NO</b> special process or heightened level of
approval was intended for the FOI. Where we have had special
processes or heightened approvals, we have been very explicit
and gone on at considerable length to describe them. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Taking the
parenthetical in the Proposal's "draft bylaw" language --
"(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)" -- and using
that to manufacture a requirement for a heightened standard
(affirmative approval vs. non-objection, or unanimous
affirmative approval) tortures the language and is without any
basis. We have been clear throughout that the exact language
of the "draft bylaw" texts in the Proposal is not to be taken
as is, and must be read along with the other guidance in the
Proposal to determine what the "real" Draft Bylaw should say.
This is made clear when the "draft bylaw" language is
introduced in the Proposal, it is prefaced with the
following: "Include a Bylaw with the following<b> intent</b>
in Work Stream 1 recommendations". Read in conjunction wtih
Para 168 and Annex 6 Paras 5 and 19, it is clear that the <i
style="font-weight:bold">intent</i> of the CCWG was that
there should be no special process for the FOI.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, this is not a
Work Stream 2 question or an implementation question. This is
a question of what the Draft Bylaw should say <i>now </i>and
we need to resolve this now.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The current Draft Bylaw
language does NOT accurately reflect the intent of the CCWG.
While I'm not wedded to my exact language suggestion, there
needs to be a change made so that the intent of the CCWG is
accurately reflected. Since Para 168 and Annex 6 Paras 5 and
19 will not be in the Bylaws, something needs to be added to
the language now proposed so that the point they clearly and
repeatedly make is absolutely clear in the Bylaws.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM,
McAuley, David <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com" target="_blank">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p>I agree with Greg’s thoughtful comments almost all
the time, but not in this case.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Greg’s point, as I understand it, is that we should
not perpetuate language that led to confusion. A
worthy goal – but IMO it is better taken up in
developing the FoI in WS2. We have a proposal and it
is done and has been accepted by the COs and it says
what it says. We should not “fix” it now – we should
ask whether the draft bylaws capture what the proposal
says. With Holly’s tweak it is basically verbatim.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I can understand the sense in Niels’s comment
that Greg’s change leaves no room for interpretation –
my concern is that the proposal does leave such room
and it is what we presented to the COs for approval.
Dealing with interpretation is what implementation and
WS2 are basically set up to do. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those are my thoughts on this point and I commend
those on both sides for their insights and intent.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>David McAuley<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Greg Shatan [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"
target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 25, 2016 7:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gregory, Holly<br>
<b>Cc:</b> McAuley, David; Dr. Tatiana Tropina; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a>;
Sidley ICANN CCWG; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com"
target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a></span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in
bylaws spotted</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Holly
and All,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I'm
concerned that by reverting to the language
in the Proposal, we are perpetuating the
language that led to confusion in the first
place. It should be clear that this is a
"business as usual" process of Chartering
Organization review of a CCWG-Accountability
consensus recommendations, just as was done
with the Proposal. i would suggest adding
the following clarifying language:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">“(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) the CCWG-Accountability
as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream
2 <i><u>(including Chartering Organizations’
approval
</u></i></span><b><i><u><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">as
set forth in the CCWG-Accountability
Charter</span></u></i></b><i><u><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">),
and </span></u></i><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> (ii) <s>each
of the CCWG-Accountability’s chartering
organizations and (iii)</s> the Board (in
the case of the Board, using the same
process and criteria used by the Board to
consider the Work Stream 1
Recommendations).”</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I
look forward to your thoughts.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at
3:48 PM, Gregory, Holly <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a></a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dear
CCWG-Accountability,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We
have been following this email stream
and in re-reading the language of the
Bylaws we understand how the language
could be misread to call for a standard
higher than what is intended. Therefore
we propose that a clarification would be
helpful. Specifically, to remove any
confusion and help assure that the
Bylaws are read in a manner that is
consistent with the proposal, we
recommend the following clarifying
change to Section 27.3: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“(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) the
CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
recommendation in Work Stream 2
<i><u>(including Chartering
Organizations’ approval), and </u></i> (ii)
<s>each of the CCWG-Accountability’s
chartering organizations and (iii)</s>
the Board (in the case of the Board,
using the same process and criteria used
by the Board to consider the Work Stream
1 Recommendations).” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">If
you agree, we recommend that you include
this in the CCWG’s public comment.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Kind
regards,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Holly
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">HOLLY</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <b>J.
GREGORY</b></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Partner
and Co-Chair<br>
Corporate Governance & Executive
Compensation Practice Group</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sidley
Austin LLP</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
787 Seventh Avenue<br>
New York, NY 10019<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853"
target="_blank">+1 212 839 5853</a></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com"
title="Click to send email to
Gregory, Holly" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a></a></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sidley.com/"
title="www.sidley.com"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">www.sidley.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sidley.com/"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png"
alt="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png"
border="0" width="35" height="35"></span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <b>SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>McAuley, David<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 25, 2016
2:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dr. Tatiana Tropina; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
inconsistency in bylaws spotted</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">In my
personal opinion, I think Tatiana was
correct in observing that there can be
different interpretations in this
respect.
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">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.
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">Here is what
the draft bylaw-language in the
proposal provides:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">“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.”</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">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.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">David
McAuley</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in
0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
inconsistency in bylaws spotted</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
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 </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p style="margin-left:.5in">Hi,</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">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 style="margin-left:.5in">I
therefore think the bylaw text is
consistent with the intent of the
report.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">Regards</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">Sent from
my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
On 24 Apr 2016 7:01 p.m., "Niels
ten Oever" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a></a>>
wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<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="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.article19.org&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=NcvlJyYsf1dukFULmFMt12-UJRg0HtYLbYCN8XiVDjo&e="
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"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e="
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may
contain information that is privileged or
confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete the e-mail and any attachments
and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">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></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>