[Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary

Sun Jan 8 10:27:19 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,
Tks again but the definition for consensus that you have provided
Quote
*b)     Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most
agree"*
Unquote
Does in no way reflect the meaning of consensus .
Pls read Bylaws
Regards
Kavouss

2017-01-08 8:37 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> The CCWG Charter contains the following definitions:
>
>
> *a)     Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
> identified by an absence of objection*
>
> *b)     Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most
> agree*
>
> It would be helpful to use these terms, to reflect the Charter and to
> avoid miscommunication.  "Agreement" is not a defined term, and should be
> avoided.  Using the terms above, the proper course of action should read:
>
> 1.The subgroup should conduct the primary discussion and interpretation of
> its mandate.
>
> 2. Should  Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus)
> be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the Consensus
> conclusion of the subgroup) to the attention of Plenary for approval.
>
> 3. Should  Consensus (NOT simple Majority/Minority and NOT Full Consensus)
> not be reached the subgroup should then bring the matter (i.e., the
> alternative conclusions under consideration in the subgroup) to the
> attention of Plenary for advice, which may include a Consensus conclusion
> by the Plenary regarding the mandate of the subgroup.
>
> 4.  The subgroup should proceed accordingly (i.e., follow the mandate
> approved or decided by the Plenary, or follow the advice of the Plenary if
> the Plenary only offers advice).
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> With respect to Niels message:
>> My understanding was that Niels asked the subgroup to discuss the
>> interpretation of its mandate .
>> You understood Niels message was addressed  to the Plenary for which I
>> fully agree
>> However, if Niels want to discuss the matter at the level of subgroup the
>> following course of action is necessary:
>> 1.The subgroup could start the primary discussion and interpretation of
>> its   mandate.
>> 2. Should Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft
>> or Rough Consensus) is  reached the subgroup should then bring the
>> matter to the attention of Plenary for approval
>> 3. Should  Agreement or Consensus ( NOT Majority / Minority and NOT Soft
>> or Rough Consensus) is not reached the subgroup should then bring the
>> matter to the attention of Plenary for advice.
>> If the above course of action is consented,then the sub group should
>> proceed accordingly
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-01-08 1:46 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Niels's email is addressed to the CCWG-Plenary.
>>>
>>> With regard to discussions at the subgroup level, the subgroup is the
>>> proper place for the primary discussion and interpretation of the
>>> subgroup's mandate.  The conclusions of the subgroup should then be brought
>>> back to the Plenary for approval.  If the subgroup cannot agree on an
>>> interpretation of the mandate, or if (as here) the subgroup perceived a
>>> need for clarification from the Plenary, then (as here), the subgroup
>>> should go back to the Plenary for advice.  Which is exactly what Niels has
>>> done.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Niels,
>>>> Dear Neils,
>>>> Thank you for your message and updates
>>>> Pls kindly  note  that the subgroup is not eligible to interprète its
>>>> mandater .The mandate was established by the higher level  in other words
>>>> and any interprétation requires the advice from that higher level
>>>> Homewear,  you may start to discuss the issue on preliminary basis but
>>>> you need to report to CCWG Plenary ,including advice from its CO- CHAIR.
>>>> Please kindly take such action to avoid another series of complex
>>>> discussion pros and cones on the issue .
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-07 18:30 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to this version of the email instead.  The prior version
>>>>> inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared
>>>>> with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw.
>>>>> After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us
>>>>> to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are
>>>>> different ways of interpreting this.  This difference stems, in part,
>>>>> from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in
>>>>> Annex 12.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where
>>>>> we should go next.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a bit more detail:
>>>>>
>>>>> Paragraph 7 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas Paragraph 24 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate
>>>>> task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation.  On the other
>>>>> hand,
>>>>> Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate
>>>>> tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of
>>>>> Interpretation.  This makes a significant difference in how we
>>>>> determine
>>>>> what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of
>>>>> Interpretation we have completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of
>>>>> Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be
>>>>> interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be
>>>>> “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential
>>>>> consequences this might have.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the
>>>>> plenary.
>>>>> 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential
>>>>> amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations
>>>>> listed in Annex 6.
>>>>> 3. We  need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of
>>>>> the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations
>>>>> on
>>>>> what potential next steps could be
>>>>> 4. We need to  test  specific cases on a hypothetical basis  to see
>>>>> whether the FoI suffices.  (in this regard, hypothetical cases
>>>>> suggested
>>>>> by the plenary would be helpful.)
>>>>>
>>>>> We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led
>>>>> us into quite detailed discussions on recommending  the use of Human
>>>>> Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated
>>>>> in
>>>>> PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions,  it felt as though  we
>>>>> were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of
>>>>> our Subgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. A fifth  option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1
>>>>> and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s
>>>>> and
>>>>> AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in  the Human
>>>>> Rights Bylaw.  These recommendations could include (a) chartering a
>>>>> GNSO
>>>>> Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw
>>>>> should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and
>>>>> implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the
>>>>> other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c)
>>>>> chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the
>>>>> steps
>>>>> needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of
>>>>> the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate  the CCWG’s output in
>>>>> their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted
>>>>> by
>>>>> ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human
>>>>> resources, employment, and contracting practices  based on the Bylaw.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and
>>>>> we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially
>>>>> other
>>>>> options.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and
>>>>> we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2
>>>>> with you all in 2017.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Thanks Greg and Brett for finding this error and for helping to
>>>>> correct it.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>>
>>>>> Article 19
>>>>> www.article19.org
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>>>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ws2-hr mailing list
>>>>> Ws2-hr at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170108/0e91e64a/attachment-0001.html>