[Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 08:14:59 UTC 2017
Dear Leon,
First of all, Happy New Year
Pls may you kindly comment on the matter as there are a lot of comments by
CCWG Researchers .
Once again, it reveals that the Final reports lacks coherence in different
parts of the report dealing with the same subject.
Regards.
Kavouss
2017-01-04 23:30 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
> 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/20170105/a0cbaae3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list