[Ws2-hr] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI

Fri Jan 27 14:47:10 UTC 2017

I think we have to be careful in how we interpret Annex 12.  It says:

"... the CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of 
Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following 
as it elaborates on the language to be used..."

The bullets in Annex 12 are things to consider in elaborating the 
language that we use in the FoI, not questions that have to be 
answered.  Have we considered the issues raised in Annex 12? Yes, to a 
greater or lesser degree and I suspect that we have touched upon all of 
them a number of times in our various discussions.

I think we need to agree on an approach as to how we should account for 
the bullets.  Have we addressed them - considered them - enough as we 
were writing the FoI?  And if they are not accounted for in some form in 
the FoI do we write a para on each saying what the result of our 
considerations were?

Also, and this may be an issue of interpretation, but I always 
understood that the FoI does not operationalize the bylaw.  It provides 
context and guidance as to how it should be interpreted.  
Operationalizing the bylaw - or how it is implemented - is what some of 
those bullets are getting at in Annex 12 - and those are issues beyond 
the FoI.  That is what I thought we were starting to address before we 
asked the CCWG for guidance (which has, I believe, great merit).

Matthew

On 27/01/2017 13:06, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> This is a good summary of where we are.
>
>
> On 27/01/17 11:40, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I don't think the group at this point can "confirm that it has completed
>> developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability
>> WS1 Recommendations" as recommended by co-chairs. What we have done is
>> interpreted the text of the bylaw. I do not believe the current version
>> of FoI addresses all the issues from the Annex 12, moreover. Neither do
>> I believe it makes bylaw operational.
>>
>> The initial idea was that the bylaw will come into force after the
>> adoption of FoI. I have some difficulties to imagine how the current FoI
>> will really operationalise the bylaw. Even the fact that we didn't
>> answer all the questions from the Annex 12 in the current version of FoE
>> makes our task incomplete. Furthermore, we had some issues raised on the
>> mailing list in the beginning, like the one from Farzaneh, about ccTLDs
>> and Human Rights - we have not addressed or considered these issues. The
>> idea behind the dormant bylaw was that it creates to much ambiguity
>> without the FoI. The current draft of FoI doesn't really solve this
>> problem.
>>
>> So the only way I see is to redraft the FoE to include everything we
>> have to include.
>>
>> Happy to hear other opinions.
>>
>> Warm regards
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>> On 27/01/17 09:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please find underneath the message that has been shared by the 
>>> co-chairs
>>> to the plenary list yesterday. I would be very curious to hear what 
>>> your
>>> initial reaction is.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:     [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
>>> Date:     Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:11:05 -0600
>>> From:     León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>> To:     CCWG Accountability<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The Co-Chairs have considered the question from the Human Rights
>>> sub-group regarding the scope of its mandate with respect ot WS2.
>>>
>>> The Co-Chairs will note that although there may be some ambiguity in
>>> interpreting the WS2 requirements for the Human Rights sub-group 
>>> between
>>> Annex 6 and Annex 12 of its WS1 recommendations that this should not be
>>> surprising given the timeline we were working under for WS1. The
>>> Co-Chairs will note that all the other sub-groups are referring to 
>>> Annex
>>> 12 to define the scope of their work and that it would make sense 
>>> from a
>>> consistency point of view that the Human Rights sub-group do so also.
>>>
>>> The Co-Chairs further note that some of the "considerations" requested
>>> of the Human Rights sub-group seem rather open ended such as “Consider
>>> how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact
>>> with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.”. Although this
>>> would certainly be an interesting intellectual exercise it is unclear
>>> how long it would take to complete this or what effect it could 
>>> actually
>>> have on the FOI that has been produced.
>>>
>>> Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that
>>> the Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the
>>> Human Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1
>>> Recommendations.
>>>
>>> Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN
>>> implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs 
>>> would be
>>> amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such
>>> suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if 
>>> there
>>> was no objection from the plenary.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas, Mathieu and León
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-hr mailing list
>>> Ws2-hr at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-hr mailing list
>> Ws2-hr at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170127/69db981b/attachment-0001.html>