[Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations document Feb 28 19:00 UTC
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Mar 1 17:42:29 UTC 2017
Bastiaan,
I think the proposed "interpretation" text is confusing because it is
trying to deliver the "no consensus" (and therefore "no recommendation")
conclusion on the UNGPs in a very gentle way, to the point where it may not
be understood. I think the proposed "implementation" text (which is even
more in flux) is confusing because it is trying to embrace several
contradictory thoughts simultaneously, but without melding those into a
"consensus" or "no consensus" finding. Perhaps there is also a blurring of
the concept of "implementing the Bylaw" vs. the broader concept of
"implementing Human Rights approaches at ICANN" beyond what may be needed
to implement the Bylaw as such.,
Hopefully, we will untangle these threads as we move forward.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Bastiaan Goslings <
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
> Thanks Greg - I will try to incorporate my suggestions in the doc asap-ish.
>
> And, yes:
>
> > I assume I am reading correctly that he is saying that we shouldn’t try
> to parse through the UNGPs
>
> That is correct.
>
> I furthermore feel that the current draft ‘considerations’ text is
> confusing: a.o. with regard to potentially using (parts of) the UNGPs
> either for interpreting the Core Value (for which there is no consensus in
> the group) or implementation purposes (for which it is unclear to me
> whether there is consensus in the group although the text suggest the UNGPs
> can be used for implementation). And that in combination with the ‘the use
> of the Guiding Principles as potential guidance has to be carefully
> considered’ by each constituency. The ‘potential guidance’ not only sounds
> like ‘interprete’ to me. I’m also not sure if the ‘has to be carefully
> considered’ is applicable when an SO/AC itself decides to use (parts of)
> the UNGPs, or if it means that, as an obligation, it has to consider these
> UNGPs. Albeit ‘carefully’.
>
> -Bastiaan
>
>
> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 16:46, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I generally agree with Bastiaan's remarks and particularly with regard
> to the discussion of the UNGPs. (On one point, I assume I am reading
> correctly that he is saying that we shouldn't try to parse through the
> UNGPs, which is where we have run aground at least once). It would be
> great if he could get these suggestions into the Google Doc.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> > C: 917-816-6428
> > S: gsshatan
> > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Anne,
> >
> > In Article 1, Principles 2 of GAC Operating Principles:
> >
> > ______________
> >
> > Principle 2
> >
> > The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views to the
> > ICANN Board. The GAC is not a decision making body. Such advice given by
> > the GAC shall be without prejudice to the responsibilities of any public
> > authority with regard to the bodies and activities of ICANN, including
> > the Supporting Organisations and Councils.
> >
> > ______________
> >
> > The GAC advises on policies, and does not create them. I think other
> > interpretations might leads us into long complicated discussions.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> >
> >
> > On 02/28/2017 09:03 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> > > GAC absolutely does, from a practical standpoint, develop policies.
> It is mandated to advise the ICANN Board with respect to public policy and
> that results in policy recommendations. These public policy
> recommendations have special effect under the ByLaws when they are
> Consensus policies as to which the Board is advised.
> > >
> > > It is fiction that the GAC does not develop policy. Public policy is
> the role of the GAC. It directly affects gTLD policy. Otherwise, no GAC
> safeguards would exist as to certain strings, e.g. .bank, etc. etc. etc.
> Thank goodness for the GAC. Consumers would be in big trouble without the
> GAC and consumer trust and confidence is already challenged on the Internet.
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> > > Of Counsel
> > > 520.629.4428 office
> > > 520.879.4725 fax
> > > AAikman at lrrc.com
> > > _______________________________
> > >
> > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> > > lrrc.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:49 AM
> > > To: Kavouss Arasteh
> > > Cc: <ws2-hr at icann.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations
> document Feb 28 19:00 UTC
> > >
> > > Dear Kavouss,
> > >
> > > There are no policies developed in the GAC, so this makes the GAC
> different from the GNSO, CCNSO, and ASO, right?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> > >> Dear Niels,
> > >> I understand that the question referring to GAC Advice then pls add
> > >> the same text to the Policy development under GNSO and CCNSO by
> > >> replacing GAC by these two entities.
> > >> I have proposed that version earlier but you did not consider it.
> > >> What I wish is to treat all entities providing Recommendations and
> > >> Advice EQUALY.
> > >> Some GNSO, IPC, ccNSO participants pushing to marginalize GAC again.
> > >> Pls kindly understand the problem
> > >> Regards
> > >> Kavouss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-02-28 12:38 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>:
> > >>
> > >>> Dear Kavouss,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 02/28/2017 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> > >>>> Dear Niels,
> > >>>> Thank you very much for the file.
> > >>>> I still have serious difficulties to treat GNSO and ccNSO
> > >>>> Recommendations from GAC Advice. Unless all three are not treated
> > >>>> equally , I would continue to object to the texts proposed.
> > >>>
> > >>> The consideration is responding to a direct question about the GAC,
> > >>> that is why only GAC is explicitly mentioned there.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> I also have problem with the term " HUMAN RIGHTS BYLAW as there is
> > >>>> no Bylaw for human rights .Perhaps we should say Human Rights
> > >>>> mentioned in Bylaw.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, I propose that we consistently use Human Rights Core Value, so
> > >>> that there will be no confusion about what is meant.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I therefore attaching my comments in a revised version of the
> > >>>> doc.,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Niels
> > >>>
> > >>>> Regards
> > >>>> Kavouss
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2017-02-28 8:26 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > >>>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear Niels and all____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Further to the comment below, please find attached a version of
> the
> > >>>> document with further suggestions and comments/questions (which
> I
> > >>>> have also included in the Google Doc).____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the meetings as
> they
> > >>>> always are at the same time and at least in Europe fall in the
> > >>>> evening, where other commitments and obligations of a different
> > >>>> nature are due. Maybe we could reconsider the non-rotation of
> the
> > >>>> meetings…____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nonetheless, I hope that these comments may be taken on board
> during
> > >>>> today’s call. ____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @staff: please mention my comments during the call, as if I was
> > >>>> there J____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kind regards____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jorge ____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> > >>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 06:38
> > >>>> *An:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> > >>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>; ws2-hr at icann.org
> > >>>> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> > >>>> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING
> considerations
> > >>>> document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear Niels____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While I will not be able to attend the call this evening, I
> disagree
> > >>>> with the wording of this sentence:____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "However, there was not sufficient support to recommend the
> > >>>> application of the UN Guiding Principles for the
> /interpretation /of
> > >>>> the Bylaw."____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The WG did not reach consensus or did not reach agreement -
> which is
> > >>>> the way we worked. Saying that "there was not sufficient
> support"
> > >>>> mischaracterizes the way we work(ed) and may imply that there
> was
> > >>>> some sort of voting, which was not the case.____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Therefore I would propose the following text:____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "However, there was no agreement on whether to recommend the
> > >>>> application of the UN Guiding Principles for the
> /interpretation /of
> > >>>> the Bylaw."____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hope you may take this on board.____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jorge____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> ------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> > >>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>
> > >>>> *Datum:* 28. Februar 2017 um 01:16:01 MEZ
> > >>>> *An:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org><ws2-
> hr at icann.org
> > >>>> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
> > >>>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda FIRST READING considerations
> > >>>> document Feb 28 19:00 UTC____
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __ __
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is with great pleasure that I can share with you the draft
> > >>>> agenda
> > >>> for
> > >>>> the meeting of February 28, 19:00 UTC.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The drafting group worked hard after the constructive session
> > >>>> last
> > >>> week.
> > >>>> With this document we might have arrived at a new milestone.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am very much looking forward to have a first reading of the
> > >>>> Considerations document with you in the call. As previously
> > >>> discussed,
> > >>>> the Consideration document will be merged into one document
> > >>>> with the
> > >>> FoI
> > >>>> upon approval by the subgroup.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am greatly looking forward to discuss this with you on the
> call.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please find the proposed agenda underneath and attached, as
> > >>>> well as
> > >>> the
> > >>>> document.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1. Administrivia
> > >>>> Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
> > >>>> 2. First reading (of two) of the Considerations document
> > >>>> prepared by
> > >>> the
> > >>>> drafting team
> > >>>> 3. AOB
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The document can also be found here:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O
> > >>> i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJfmglI5wBib7T5hgIMMysO7x6J3O
> > >>> i5NYwN4AItZjkY/edit>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any question or suggestions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> All the best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Niels
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Niels ten Oever
> > >>>> Head of Digital
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Article 19
> > >>>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > >>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9____
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Niels ten Oever
> > >>> Head of Digital
> > >>>
> > >>> Article 19
> > >>> www.article19.org
> > >>>
> > >>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > >>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Niels ten Oever
> > > Head of Digital
> > >
> > > Article 19
> > > www.article19.org
> > >
> > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
> > > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ws2-hr mailing list
> > Ws2-hr at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170301/3f1b1e0c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list