[cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps

Tue Mar 17 17:59:44 UTC 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

Thank a lot for this Jean-Jacques. Great to see a sudden flurry on
this list.

Lee Hibbard of the Council of Europe has already graciously
volunteered to closely follow the proceedings in the GAC on this topic.

I hope that my previous email will contribute to the discussion on
scope and objective.

I will send out an email after this to invite people for a conference
call on this topic. In the mean time I would like to invite people to
bring up topics they would like to (see) researched and discussed
where it comes to Human Rights and ICANN ahead of the meeting in
Buenos Aires.

Looking forward to discuss.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 03/17/2015 06:28 PM, Jean-Jacques Sahel wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Following on from discussions in Singapore, here are a few
> observations which we hope will help you in assessing next steps in
> your work around human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, as a start we would encourage you to use this list as a
> tool to let the discussion mature, in particular regarding
> objectives, modalities and feasibility - as an informal “working
> party” if you will. To provide you with some further food for
> thought:
> 
> 
> 
> ·      There is no particular definition of a “working party” as a 
> formal structure within ICANN. To have a process established as a
> formal structure within ICANN it could either take the form of a
> Working Group (under the behest of any interested SO/AC), or a
> Cross-Community Working Group (with multiple SO/ACs as Chartering
> organizations) or as a Working Group instituted by the Board (like
> the Geographic Regions Working Group) or committees launched by the
> CEO (e.g. various discussion groups in the past).
> 
> -       Before deciding on a particular structure, you need to be
> clear what the objective / scope is and from that, which mechanism
> is best suited to achieve them. It probably would be helpful that
> those interested in this effort would *first define and agree on
> the objective and scope* of such an effort, so as to help determine
> whether a CCWG or Working Group, or else such as a fact-finding ad
> hoc group, is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the
> agreed objective. (The reason to set up a CCWG, for example, can be
> to assess the effectiveness of an existing procedure; or produce a
> fact-finding document; or a set of recommendations; first for SO/AC
> approval, then for submission to the ICANN Board).
> 
> ·     You will also need to establish a specific methodology;
> first, you may want to consider here to do some fact-finding and
> agree on the focus of the work, so as to be able to start
> familiarising others in the community with the ideas and objectives
> at stake. This could eventually take the form of a charter or
> statement of work that interested parties could sign up to.
> 
> -        As an example, should the objective / scope be to provide 
> recommendations to the Board that are developed jointly by a number
> of SO/ACs, then you may want to consider pursuing a CCWG. This
> would require at a minimum two SO/ACs that would serve as the
> chartering organisations for such an effort. The formation of a
> CCWG is typically at the initiative of an SO/AC – the chair or
> representative of an SO/AC will approach the other SO/ACs to
> determine whether there is interest to form a CCWG on a particular
> topic. If so, a small number of representatives are requested to
> participate in the drafting team that is responsible for developing
> a charter. Once the drafting team has completed its work, the
> charter is submitted to all the interested SO/ACs for approval
> according to their own processes. (Based on recent experiences
> running CWG/CCWG, we have good illustrations available that can
> help as a starting point for any drafting effort). In order to 
> charter a Cross-Community Working Group, two or more SO/ACs would
> need to adopt the charter. So for NCSG and ALAC for example, they
> would need to get the GNSO as a whole to support the process. As
> raised during the Human Rights workshop at ICANN52, SO/ACs deciding
> on the creation of new workstreams normally involves consideration
> of the current workload and priorities. You may also want to think
> of who could be the ‘champions’ of the issue across different
> SO/ACs, who can start organising the discussion in a more
> structured manner.
> 
> -        Note that as mentioned above, there are also other
> (ad-hoc) mechanisms that could be pursued depending on the
> objective, such as a WG or discussion group.
> 
> -        You will also want to take into account that in its
> Singapore Communique, the GAC resolved to create a dedicated
> working group to look at this issue. It will be important to make
> sure there is linkage / coordination with other initiatives that
> are ongoing or have commenced elsewhere on the subject. (from the
> GAC Communique: “9. International Law, Human Rights and ICANN - The
> GAC decided to establish a Working Group on Human Rights Issues and
> the Application of International Law as these matters relate to
> ICANN activities. The GAC will also monitor community developments
> and consider how any GAC initiatives can complement any such
> developments.”)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> 
> Jean-Jacques
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vice-President, Global Stakeholder Engagement (Europe & Civil
> Society)
> 
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> Tel: +44 77 400 73176
> 
> Skype: jean-jacques.sahel.icann
> 
> Email: jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org');>
> 
> @pointjjs
> 
> 
> 
> /One World, One Internet/
> 
> cid:689AB906-EEAC-46C8-8257-7506F7B78BD8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights
> mailing list cc-humanrights at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCGuQAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpvLEH/21BMcRVjrXlizbQwKoPyYaA
MN6Lbg+PvQtA0IdHvqslEhtUwML4qFkTPKWrFTKpnbLGD19qgE7hlWyeSOFR011r
6z2F/POeZ4nYrSg0MLSP+MluYbCqftqLL/wRoLE/OtDk/6jNqVq0JTBc5StbHtBE
+oT350wqDmP4EqLsf7QMmTICRGfprCK1mk5uXHnnsUmz/GQhyQCx9Lv5H+nSEg5L
/F6gMWE/UX5IuaH72qF1ESWbOdNZzG637vKrhlbVh6FYPMhtw+nF7FS/yPpngCeJ
i9s1ARgJxUdB163eQt9qLvG8hxP7J+txWFCRfHiFtL8zVFNHXNY5un2uLf1nil4=
=PLCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----