[Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Fri Aug 18 08:23:05 UTC 2017

Hello Anne,

I do think the wording you've suggested here is more appropriate (in
addition with the naming if required). I don't think "significant minority"
flows very well in this context.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 16, 2017 8:33 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> 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
> <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
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170818/e55b8581/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170818/e55b8581/image003-0001.png>