[Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Tue Aug 22 16:29:47 UTC 2017

Dear Niels
please accept my apologies for tonights call as the scheduling conflict with these NON-rotating calls I informed about months ago remains.
I trust that nonetheless you will respect and consider my comments on the "answers" Excel, supported by Thiago and Mark, and on the "draft message to CCWG", especially the comment that the new text of the FoI, which has been prepared by a limited drafting group where no GAC-Members participated, as it has not taken on board any of the substantial comments from Switzerland, UK or Brazil cannot be considered as a "consensus" document of the Subgroup. This point is of an essential nature to us and will be maintained.

regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Datum: 22. August 2017 um 15:17:00 MESZ
An: ws2-hr at icann.org <ws2-hr at icann.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>
Betreff: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Dear Niels,
Thanks but I do not feel  that such a disclaimer is up for the Subgroup to decide as it expresses the view of one member and makes clear that it is only this member's view. Besides, it is common practice that members of working groups can include such disclaimers on documents prepared by such working groups where the member has a fundamental issue. A footnote would be OK for us. I hope I do not need to escalate this issue further.
Regards
Jorge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 15:01
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr at icann.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG

Dear Jorge,

That is a decision I cannot make by myself. I hope we can discuss the document again this evening with you and Thiago present. If not, we will discuss adding this with the subgroup. But since it constitutes a consensus statement, and not a full consensus statement, I am not sure whether outlining parties who were against this statement is according to the standing practice.

Best,

Niels

On 08/22/2017 07:03 AM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Dear Niels,
>
> As I have not seen any direct reply to this I would kindly like to request you to confirm reception of the below messages, and of our request that a disclaimer is included to the document of "responses".
>
> thanks and regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Datum: 16. August 2017 um 15:11:00 MESZ
> An: ws2-hr at icann.org <ws2-hr at icann.org>, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at nielstenoever.net>
> Betreff: AW: [Ws2-hr] Draft Message to CCWG
>
> Dear Niels,
>
> As to the “answers” to the comments I guess that they are the product
> of discussions I have missed unfortunately. However, I cannot agree
> with many of the “arguments” included in the Excel sheet and therefore
> would wish that a disclaimer be included in the document, stating that
> “these responses are not endorsed or supported by the representative
> of Switzerland who is member of this Subgroup” (the language can be
> improved, for sure)
>
> Thanks for taking note of this and regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 15:03
> An: 'Niels ten Oever' <lists at nielstenoever.net>; ws2-hr at icann.org
> Betreff: AW: [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
>

--
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