[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Thomas Rickert
rickert at anwaelte.de
Wed May 4 16:10:57 UTC 2016
Hi all,
can I suggest we end the discussion on this?
It has been pointed out by several colleagues in the CCWG both by e-mail as well as on the phone that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Greg has also sent a few notes explaining what was and what was not said.
I will meet Kavouss tomorrow at the WSIS forum and hopefully we can resolve any remaining issues on this topic.
Thank you all,
Thomas
> Am 03.05.2016 um 18:56 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>:
>
> Dear Kavouss,
>
> Could you please make clear what you are referring to? I have a hard
> time understanding what you mean.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 05/03/2016 06:48 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Dear Niels
>> Thank you very much for yr message
>> May you pls advise why you separate GAC from other chartering organisations ?
>> Why such discrimination is made?
>> Do you associate yourself with those who clearly and openly wish to exclude GAC from any and all process?
>> I am surprised to hear from you differentiating GAC from other chartering organisations
>> Is GAC a step child compared with other SO/AC?
>> I just do not understand why GAC should be treated different from other chartering organisations?
>> Regards
>> Kavousd
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 3 May 2016, at 18:35, 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
>
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160504/68dff831/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160504/68dff831/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the bylaws-coord
mailing list