[Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Wed Aug 16 19:32:26 UTC 2017

I do see the point Jorge is making and I think this must be why the GAC asked for “applicable law” of the jurisdiction to be a “high interest topic” in Abu Dhabi.  I am trying to remember whether the Accountability plenary developed any guidelines for describing different levels of “consensus”.

GNSO has very specific categories for consensus during a Policy Development Process.   If we borrow their terminology,  “Minority View” cold apply in relation to the Ruggie Principles as expressed by members from Switzerland and the UK  (rather than a statement relating to Jorge personally).  I don’t support the “lowest common denominator” language but would certainly support a statement that

“While most of the group supports the position that there is no obligation for ICANN to adopt UNGP, there is a Minority View in favor of voluntary adoption of UNGP by ICANN the organization for assessment purposes .”

The above  terminology is taken from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.  Again I am not sure whether Accountability has its own separate consensus guidelines – (just can’t remember at this point.)  I think we also said somewhere in the FOI that as to Ruggie, there was “no consensus”.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D3168B.B7671E10]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:03 AM
To: lists at nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Dear Niels,

It will not come as a surprise that I have to reiterate that this outcome is not satisfactory. Given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding the mention of the UNGP, I do not think that the following sentence is accurate:

                "The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission."

In my view, it could read as follows: " The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.”

Regards

Jorge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 14:53
An: ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Dear all,

I hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As a follow up to yesterdays meeting Bernie and I have prepared a response to the CCWG that you can find underneath, as well as a more detailed overview attached.

This is a first draft. We would very much like to hear you comments, suggestions and improvements.

All the best,

Niels

The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability Human Rights Subgroup would like to sincerely thanks those who have taken the time and effort to submit public comment to the Framework of Interpretation and Considerations document during the Public Comment Period [0].

The Subgroup has analyzed and discussed the comments at great length and came to the following conclusions:

The mandate of the group does not include suggesting any changes to the ICANN Bylaws, this includes the Bylaw on Human Rights. As such any comments which would require changing the Bylaws cannot be accepted.

This is the case for comments recommending changes in the hierarchy of Core Values as outlined in the bylaw or for comments pertaining the use of the term “applicable law” which is part of ICANN’s Human Rights bylaw.

The Subgroup does recognize that the documents mentioned in the footnotes are not necessarily an exhaustive list of human rights document, and therefore the text has been  changed from ‘including:’ to ‘including, but not limited to:’.

Finally, no new references to any instrument in general or the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in specific have been added. The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission.

The HR sub-group has developed a document which lists a response to each of the major comments submitted to the public consultation and is including it in this email for reference by the CCWG-Accountability-WS2.

This will be published on the public consultation web site as part of the standard process.

As such the HR sub-group is submitting its final recommendations for an HR FoI to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 for approval. Given the submissions made in the public comment process and the minimal changes that have been made to the document to address these the HR sub-group would not recommend this version be posted for public comment.

[0] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en

--

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

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170816/120afd43/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170816/120afd43/image003-0001.png>