<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Niels,</div><div>Thank you very much for the hard works </div><div>I think we need to just send this doc. to the Plenary and let the distinguished co -chairs also do some work and sort out the workable way forward.</div><div>There is no need to re discuss the matter otherwise the Professional talkers talk and talks and again talks among themselves without listening to others </div><div>Enough is enough.</div><div>We have done what we should do . There are duplication and reptation in the Report of WS1and we have to leave it like this .</div><div>The only thing that we need to do at this satge and even before going to Plenary is the following:<br> <font color="#ff0000">Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments<br> should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human<br> Rights Bylaw</font>.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss <span></span></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-29 16:40 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net" target="_blank">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear CCWG Plenary,<br>
<br>
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared<br>
with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw.<br>
After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us<br>
to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are<br>
different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part,<br>
from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.<br>
<br>
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where<br>
we should go next.<br>
<br>
In a bit more detail:<br>
<br>
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:<br>
<br>
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:<br>
• Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw.<br>
• Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other<br>
instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the<br>
Bylaw.<br>
• Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
• Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted<br>
to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent<br>
with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols.<br>
• Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s<br>
consideration of advice given by the GAC.<br>
• Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s<br>
operations are carried out<br>
<br>
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:<br>
<br>
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN<br>
Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the<br>
CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of<br>
Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following<br>
as it elaborates on the language to be used:<br>
• Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments<br>
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human<br>
Rights Bylaw.<br>
• Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
• Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how<br>
these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad<br>
multistakeholder involvement in the process.<br>
• Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on<br>
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee (GAC).<br>
• Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations<br>
are carried out.<br>
• Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will<br>
interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.<br>
<br>
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate<br>
task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand,<br>
Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate<br>
tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of<br>
Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine<br>
what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of<br>
Interpretation we have completed.<br>
<br>
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of<br>
Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be<br>
interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be<br>
“operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential<br>
consequences this might have.<br>
<br>
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:<br>
<br>
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary.<br>
2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential<br>
amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations<br>
listed in Annex 6.<br>
3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of<br>
the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on<br>
what potential next steps could be<br>
4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see<br>
whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested<br>
by the plenary would be helpful.)<br>
<br>
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led<br>
us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human<br>
Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in<br>
PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we<br>
were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of<br>
our Subgroup.<br>
<br>
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1<br>
and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and<br>
AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human<br>
Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO<br>
Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw<br>
should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and<br>
implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the<br>
other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c)<br>
chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps<br>
needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of<br>
the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in<br>
their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by<br>
ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human<br>
resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.<br>
<br>
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and<br>
we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other<br>
options.<br>
<br>
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and<br>
we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2<br>
with you all in 2017.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.article19.org</a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>