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

Sun Jan 8 16:01:01 UTC 2017

Dear James.
Thanks for your kind words that referred to Muddy Water. I do not think any
one have such intention.
You wish to use those so -called majority to ignore the very interests of
other.
This is not mutual understanding and mutual collaboration
Let us understand each others' problem
Tks again and best regards
Kavouss

2017-01-08 16:55 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:

> I’m sorry Kavouss but the GAC operating principles and UN definitions do
> not apply to the working methods of the CCWG, let us be clear the only
> document we can refer to for definitions within the context of
> CCWG-Accountability is our charter. Let us not muddy the waters here. This
> is hopw we have worked for the past 2 years, we are not going to change
> that now.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 3:53 PM
> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-hr at icann.org;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> First of all I am sorry for the wrong référence that I have given.
>
> It is not  directly BYLAWS but indirectly through the GAC  Opération
> Princile 47 Quote
>
>
>
> "The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership.
> Consistent with United Nations practice [1]
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles#_ftn1>,
> consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by
> general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.  Where consensus
> is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed
> by members to the ICANN Board
>
>
>
> [1]
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles#_ftnref1>
>  In United Nations practice, *the concept of “consensus” is understood to
> mean the practice of adoption of resolutions or decisions by general
> agreement without resort to voting in the absence of any formal objection
> that would stand in the way of a decision being declared adopted in that
> manner.* .......
>
> Unquote
>
> This is an important issue to be  taken into account.
>
> The term FULL CONSENSUS  in the charter, if exists was based on the term "
> rough consensus " or simply " consensus" which does not apply on such a
> delicate, controversial and hot issue like jurisdiction.
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2017-01-08 11:57 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:
>
> That is what the CCWG Charter that we all operate under says, its not for
> us to change that unless we want to go back and recharter the CCWG.
>
>
>
> -J
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
> Arasteh
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 10:27 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
>
>
>
> 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/f6773ea0/attachment-0001.html>