[Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jan 4 22:30:29 UTC 2017
All,
The attached document shows the current email and a proposed revised email,
which merely changes the texts quoted as suggested in my earlier email. I
propose that the revised email be sent to the plenary, with a short note on
top that says "Use this version of the email instead. The prior version
inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report." (or words to
that effect).
It may seem picayune, but if we are asking the plenary how to interpret
texts, we should give them the right texts.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:
> This may help
>
> http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/lec.pdf
>
> On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
>> On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any"
>> modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other
>> instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.
>>
>> If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an
>> appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely
>> getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a
>> dish is limited to declining the soup.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard
>> to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and
>> looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23.
>> Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors
>> in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final
>> Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in
>> the email.
>>
>> In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the
>> operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the
>> language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does
>> not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This
>> paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of
>> Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the
>> Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is
>> probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is
>> another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in
>> the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which
>> would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28.
>> Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.
>>
>> Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
>>
>> o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
>>
>> § Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.
>>
>> § Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other
>> instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and
>> implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
>>
>> § Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to
>> develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect
>> Human Rights.
>>
>> § Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols,
>> consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to
>> ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
>>
>> § Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s
>> consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee
>> (GAC).
>>
>> § Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s
>> operations are carried out.
>>
>> § Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw
>> will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
>>
>>
>> Paragraph 28 reads as follows:
>>
>> 28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work
>> Stream 2 are:
>>
>> o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw.
>> o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other
>> instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and
>> implementing the Bylaw.
>> o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN
>> needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its
>> commitment to respect Human Rights.
>> o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and
>> drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the
>> process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and
>> protocols.
>> o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on
>> ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC.
>> o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
>> ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is
>> developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>> recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering
>> Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the
>> ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has
>> committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations
>> o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of
>> this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN
>> policies and procedures.
>>
>> It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG
>> draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was
>> never made.
>>
>> Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final
>> version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if
>>
>> any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the
>> quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:
>>
>> 24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw
>> provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of
>> ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a
>> Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus
>> recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board
>> using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1
>> recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force
>> before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider
>> the following as it develops the FOI-HR:
>>
>> · Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or
>> other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting
>> and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.
>>
>> · Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN
>> needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to
>> respect Human Rights.
>>
>> · Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and
>> protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and
>> drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.
>>
>> · Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on
>> ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory
>> Committee (GAC).
>>
>> · Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
>> ICANN’s operations are carried out.
>>
>> · Consider how the interpretation and implementation of
>> this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and
>> procedures.
>>
>>
>> It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate
>> quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another
>> week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.
>>
>> Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts
>> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Just because you insist on something doesn't make you
>> right.
>>
>>
>> There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country
>> at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"
>>
>> Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>>
>> Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.
>>
>> Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of
>> statements intended to establish a proposition.
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
>>
>> Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a
>> contrary position.
>>
>> Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
>>
>> Man: No it isn't!
>>
>> Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is
>> just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other
>> person makes.
>>
>> (short pause)
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
>>
>> Man: It is.
>>
>> Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.
>>
>> Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT
>> CLINIC)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-hr mailing list
>> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170104/f28ec88c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised Draft of email to CCWG-Plenary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33645 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170104/f28ec88c/RevisedDraftofemailtoCCWG-Plenary-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised Draft of email to CCWG-Plenary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 47616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170104/f28ec88c/RevisedDraftofemailtoCCWG-Plenary-0001.doc>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list