[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

[Arasteh]

Dear All
If my support to the views expressed by Jorge is not Interpreted as " Silly maneuver by some governments"as it was inappropriately categorized as such by one sub group participant / observer( as I do not know the status of attendance of that person )
I fully and wholeheartedly support Jorge and request to come back to the two issues raised by Jorge 
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Aug 2017, at 09:06, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear Niels, and dear all,
>  
> thanks very much for your message, Niels.
>  
> I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons for our disagreement, which are twofold.
>  
> From a substantive point of view, we disagree with the treatment of the inputs coming from Governments during the public comment period. In our view, a balanced result would need to reflect at least some of the legitimate points made in those inputs. Instead what we have as a result is that we stick to the previous status quo and that those inputs are answered quite laconically. In particular, given the fact that the three Government inputs received were in line regarding a stronger mention and recognition of the UNGP, which after all is the most relevant international voluntary standard, we think that a compromise text should have been sought and found by the Subgroup addressing these inputs.
>  
> From a procedural point of view I will not reiterate the detailed points made before. Simply put, I am of the view that the process to treat those inputs was not satisfactory in terms of transparence and stakeholder balance/inclusivity, which in particular led to no Government rep being part of the “drafting team” where the answers to the public comment were substantively discussed.
>  
> Hence, I feel that calling this result of reverting to a status quo ante a “consensus” or a “careful balance” is not really an accurate description of the divergence of opinions expressed in this Subgroup nor a reflection of wider community feedback (as recorded in the public comment inputs).
>  
> Therefore, in my view, it would be fairer to say that we agree to disagree on how to address the mentioned Government inputs and that according to common practice in the CCWG we essentially revert to the prior text adopted by the Subgroup.
>  
> Hope this helps
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Jorge
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 14:07
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr at icann.org
> Cc: thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk; mcastanon at rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com; jordan at internetnz.net.nz; thomas at rickert.net; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
>  
> Thanks Jorge.
>  
> The original text to which you objected was:
>  
> 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 text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was:
>  
> The conclusion of the Subgroup is that the current proposed wording is a careful balance between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly considering the remit of ICANN’s Mission.
>  
> The text you propose is:
>  
> The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.
>  
> Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Niels
>  
> On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> > As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the
> > draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed
> > wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different
> > opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on
> > August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the
> > "adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not
> > handled as an alternative_.
>  
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>  
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>  
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170824/0174e0dd/attachment-0001.html>