[Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

Wed Sep 6 05:30:55 UTC 2017

Dear Greg and all,

I feel the question on the drafting team may be regarded as simple if we stick to some main elements: was there an agenda, action points from a call or an email calling for volunteers? No, there were not.
Was its composition balanced in terms of stakeholders that had provided different points of view into the public comment period? No, it wasn't.

Otherwise we would not be discussing this point within the dissent.

I could question other statements Greg makes in his last email, but I feel we would be just losing our precious time.

Those who have filed public comments have a legitimate position when they disagree in how they have been addressed, as explained before.

Those who wanted the status quo and who were in an absolute majority in the review process are naturally ok with how things went.

I would leave it by that in somewhat simplistic terms and await discussions in the CCWG.

kind regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Datum: 5. September 2017 um 22:54:08 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: <ws2-hr at icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

I would note the following:

First, the minority statement does not mention that the drafting team language was not adopted by the Subgroup.  As written, one might think the drafting team was a vehicle by which the Report was revised while excluding minority voices.  Since the work of the drafting team came to naught, it seems a trifle disproportionate to use a formal Minority Statement to raise concerns about the process by which it was formed and announced.

With regard to process, I see things somewhat differently.

The drafting team was not only announced on the call.  There were two emails to the list that same day, both mentioning the drafting team -- the post-call notes and Niels' email. Notably, Matthew Shears missed the call and still volunteered for the drafting team.  So I don't think it's fair to say that a review of the transcript was the only way to find out about the drafting team.

Could Niels have sent an email expressly seeking volunteers for the drafting team? Of course.  Did that stop Matthew? Is that an offense worthy of permanent enshrinement in the Subgroup's report? Did Niels' less direct email and the call notes serve to  exclude the "dissenter" who was not on the call from the drafting team?  Should a specific invite have been made to certain members of the Subgroup?  I would say the answer to all those questions is no, but that is only my view.

Having been invited to check the record, at least indirectly, I did so to the extent possible (I cannot see past versions of the Google Doc, as I only have "view" rights).  A search of the email list and the relevant transcripts did not reveal any proposals or draft text to the text of the Report from the "dissenters" (though one dissenting participant was actively involved in the conversations on the list and in the calls), either before or after the call for the drafting team (though there were objections to the drafting team language from the two dissenting participants).  Of course, there were contributions from many other participants in the course of these discussions.

There was also discussion of the cover email from the Subgroup, and considerable discussion of the reference to this point in that email.  The "dissenters" did suggest alternate text for this sentence, but it did not gain any traction in the rest of the Subgroup.  Perhaps there was confusion between the cover letter and the Report text, or perhaps the proposal were in prior versions of the draft document. Or perhaps I just missed something.

Overall, I have to say that I see no substantial issues of process with relation to the consideration of the 3 comments or the objections of the 2 participants.

However, I did find a process issue in my review of the history that was far more likely to have had an effect on the Subgroup's report: The decision to reject the drafting team's proposal and retain existing language took place on a single call of the Subgroup, on a call where several of the drafting team members were not present and at least 3 other members of the Subgroup who supported the drafting team's language on the list were also not present.  The views of these drafting team members and other participants were not cited during the call or otherwise taken into account.  If one wanted to raise concerns about process per se, this would seem far more meritorious.

As to the larger question of why have public comments if there are public comments that do not change the Report?  First I would note that these particular comments were vigorously and extensively debated -- which I think qualifies as "duly taken into account."  Second and more generally, the experience varies greatly from comment period to comment period, with regard to changes.  Sometimes there are quite a few changes that come from comments, others not so much.  An analysis of how and when comments result in changes would take pages, since it is more art than science.  In many cases it boils down to one or both of the following -- broad support in the group for a particular change and/or broad support across many comments for a particular change.  Of course, changes for clarity and changes of objective fact are more likely to be adopted than those that propose a change in position.

Regardless, the comments are always carefully reviewed and considered.  But ultimately, there is absolutely no presumption that any comment will result in a change -- nor should there be.  There is also no presumption and little if any precedent for the idea that a group will engage in dialogue with any of the commenters.  Indeed, it would raise serious issues if some commenters were approached and others were not.  The basic precept is that the group is where deliberations take place and where inputs are weighed, and that much of this happens on the calls.

Finally, I see that Jorge suggests that "Our opinion is that those calls [for a stronger recognition of the UNGP] should have been better addressed as explained in the dissent."  This could be "better addressed" by expanding the discussion of why changes were not made in response to these comments, though that probably doesn't belong in the body of the report.  (Maybe it could be in a response to the minority statement, if the dissenters seek to keep the minority statement in the report beyond the presentation to the plenary.)

However, I believe "better addressed" in the view of the dissenters means revising the Report so that it "would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses" (i.e., the comments of Switzerland, UK and Brazil).  In spite of significant discussions, there did not seem to be such language that would retain the broad support of the Subgroup.  In other words, the comments and those that supported them did not persuade the Subgroup to adopt such changes.  Without such persuasion, the mere fact that a comment has been made is not going to result in a change of position, no matter how convinced any commenter is that their view is correct.  As such, I think the process was honored and it worked, and that any criticisms of the process do not go to issues that would have changed the position of the group.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:41 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Hi Thomas

I hope you have read all the exchanges - perhaps you have not, otherwise it would be clear from all the materials that I was not on the 8th of August call... according to Greg's investigation Kavouss attended as member and Mark as observer...

In any case you would also know that we were not silent and that we made proposals, including draft text, to try addressing our concerns. These proposals were made on the mailing list and are on the record - please check. There was no email to the list, to me or other dissenters to join the drafting team - I would probably have joined - the same way as I was in the original pre-public comment drafting team devoting a lot of time to this effort in a minority position within that original team...please check the record.

As to the new drafting team, I feel that I have been quite nuanced. I monitored the emailing list during all the period, but as shown by Greg's investigation, if you did not look into the transcript of the specific 8 of August call it was quite difficult to identify when and how the drafting group came into being. An email to the list inviting volunteers would have been fine...

Anyway, I feel that the main point is about substance, and I'm happy that you accept that we may dissent. Being aware of such divergence of opinions -as we all were- would have advised, in my opinion, reaching out proactively to those who are now dissenting and had taken the effort of filing public comments (which in my case involved consulting several Ministries). We may disagree on that too, but it would have been probably been more productive and inclusive.

kind regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
Datum: 5. September 2017 um 18:10:14 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de> <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>, ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org> <ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

Hi Jorge,
Let me briefly share my personal (not co-chair) thoughts on this.

I have to say that I take issue with is your point on the process of recruitment of the DT.

I understand you and your colleagues have been on the call when the call for volunteers for the DT was made. You remained silent.
You even remained silent on the mailing list despite a considerable exchange of e-mails as shown in the e-mail Greg kindly put together.

Thus, you were not only asked but subsequently given the opportunity to be added to the team. You chose not to do so. That is fine.
You characterize this process as not being appropriate communication and outreach. I think that is not appropriate given what actually happened.

Please remember: This DT is not a formal working group where formal calls for volunteers are published. Are you suggesting we should add that level of complexity to our procedures?

We have managed to produce outstanding results by group members volunteering to take on on certain tasks without a formal process.

I understand that you do not agree with the substance of the report and want to make that known with your statement. That is fine.

All the best,
Thomas

Am 05.09.2017 um 15:09 schrieb <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>:

Dear Matthew and Tatiana,

I understand your points to a certain extent. But, at the same time: what are public comment periods good for if we absolutely stick to the text subject to the consultation?
What changed is that in the public consultation we had basically those who wanted to stick to the consultation text but we also heard from two additional Governments (UK, Brazil) that were not part of the prior Subgroup discussions calling for a stronger recognition of the UNGP. Our opinion is that those calls should have been better addressed as explained in the dissent…

Regards

Jorge

Von: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Dr. Tatiana Tropina
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. September 2017 14:31
An: ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

I find myself in agreement with Matt.

Also - unless my memory fails me - Jorge was a part of the team which drafted the text Matt cites. We went back to the text we agreed after hours of drafting and discussions. The text included UNGP and reflected the fact that we don't have consensus. I don't understand what changed since then? We still have no consensus on further endorsement of UNGP but they are included in the text as a possible reference.

I think the current text is balanced and takes into account all the positions. Let me also remind, that some of us - those who were against Ruggie at all - also compromised during the drafting exercise and agreed to include the Ruggie reference.

Warm regards,

Tanya

On 05/09/17 14:11, Matthew Shears wrote:

Hi

This dissenting opinion does not reflect the inclusive and extensive discussion, and multiple rounds of drafting, on the matter of the UNGP prior to the public comment.

The result of that significant discussion and drafting was the following in the Considerations document:

With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human
Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting
the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core
Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and
Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of
applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding
Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be
applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the
scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding
Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations.
In any case, a conflict between any Guiding Principle and an ICANN
Bylaw provision or Article of Incorporation must be resolved in favor of
the Bylaw or Article. The use of the Guiding Principles as potential
guidance has to be carefully considered by each SO and AC as well as
ICANN the organization.
This text was very carefully worded so as to not preclude the UNGP nor endorse it, which was agreed at the time to be the appropriate treatment of the matter.  As is clearly stated there was no consensus.  And, the final sentence allows for future consideration of the UNGP by the SOs and ACs and the ICANN the org.

Matthew

On 05/09/2017 11:33, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Thanks to Greg for this thorough investigation to the origins of the „drafting team“. Apparently only the transcript of the call on August 8th provides some clarity on how the drafting team was constituted, as the agenda, the notes of the call, and the subsequent emails did not contain an open call for participating in such a drafting team.

Nonetheless, and recognizing that at least in the call itself there was such a call for forming the drafting team, I would like to slightly amend the dissenting opinion as follows:

==
"This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group).
Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issues which they raised.
In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments.
Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as in our view there was not an appropriate communication and outreach on its constitution open invitation to participate in the drafting team, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team.
This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.”
==

Kind regards

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. September 2017 08:21
An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>; lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net><mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>;thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>; ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

All,

I think it would be helpful to review the course of events under discussion here and in the minority statement.  I've taken the time to comb through the email list and the relevant meeting transcripts, and as far as I can determine, this is what took place.  I'll provide this without further comment, but I hope it is useful to all members of the Subgroup.

1.  Niels made a request for volunteers to join a drafting team on the August 8, 2017 Working Group call.  Attendance records show that Kavouss Arasteh and Mark Carvell were on the call (the latter as an Observer).  Three people on the call (David Macauley, myself and Tatiana Tropina) volunteered for the drafting team.  Anne also apparently volunteered, but this was not noted in the call notes; this was subsequently clarified.

2.  Almost directly after the call (or possibly even during the end of the call), Niels sent to the subgroup list an email with two versions of the paragraph in question ("Original text" and "Text proposed by me on the call"), and said "I am greatly looking forward to the suggestion of the drafting team."

3.  Matthew Shears replied to that thread a couple of hours later and volunteered to be on the drafting team.  Rudy Daniel, Anne Aikman-Scalese and Kavouss Arasteh also replied to that thread, with contributions.  Rudy also sent a follow-on email with further observations; David responded to this.

4.  Within a few hours after that, MSSI Secretariat sent an email to both the CCWG and ws2-hr lists with Action Items and raw captioning from the August 8 meeting.  The second Action Item from the meeting was:

  *   DM, GS, TT volunteer for drafting team for the two elements of text which were discussed on the call this week
for consideration at the next meeting.

5.  The next day, David sent another email on the topic, again to the full subgroup list.  Kavouss, Anne and Steve DelBianco all replied to this email, discussing various aspects and options for the text.

6.  Meanwhile, Anne sent an email directly after the call with some thoughts on the language of this paragraph, to which there were numerous responses by eight different members of the subgroup (Kavouss,  Tijani, Steve, Rudy, Brett, Bastiaan, Seun and David) over the next couple of days.

7.  Members of the drafting team took note of these discussions on the list and then put together a suggested revised text to be discussed by the Subgroup.

8.  On August 15, the date set to return a text to the list, David Macauley on behalf of the Drafting Team sent a suggested text to the full list for the Subgroup to consider.  Brett and Anne (who had not yet seen the very final suggested text due to time zone differences) responded in support of the suggested text.  Jorge and Kavouss responded, objecting to the suggested text.

9.  There were also responses to Niels' agenda email to the list, commenting on the suggested text -- Brett, Matthew, Rudy, and Anne in support; Jorge and Kavouss objecting.

10.  This suggested text was then discussed on the August 15 call.  The decision on that call, as reported in the post-call email from MSSI Secretariat, was:

  *   The modifications proposed by the drafting team were not supported and as such are rejected. The original text used in the public consultation will be used.

?Only David Macauley and Tatiana Tropina were present from the drafting team. Anne, Matthew and I were unable to attend. Kavouss was on the call and participated actively in the discussion of the revised text.  Mark Carvell was present as an Observer.

?11.  ?At the following meeting on August 22, there was no further discussion of the drafting team's text.  There was a second reading of the cover email to be sent to the Plenary with the Subgroup's report, including the language used to characterize the Subgroup's response to comments suggesting that the UNGP be expressly mentioned.  There was also a lengthy discussion of procedural matters relating to the minority statement submitted by Jorge.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>> wrote:
Thanks Jorge.  You may recall that in one version of the revised “Considerations” language proposed by me on the list, I included a specific reference to ICANN the organisation using the assessment tool specified in Ruggie Principle 18(b).  This suggestion was rejected by the rest of the drafting team.  As far as I know, there were not  separate drafting team calls and everyone participated on the list and proposed language on the general list.

I am not certain how the final language arose, but in the end I elected to support it.  I do think that if either Kavouss or you as active members would have chosen to become drafting team members, the language might have been better.

Thank you
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428><tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725><tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>

_____________________________

<image001.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com><http://lrrc.com/>

From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:04 AM
To: lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net><mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>
Cc: thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>; ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for transmittal to CCWG plenary

Dear Niels,

As anticipated, please find hereunder the final version of the dissenting opinion I would like to file to the report from the Subgroup:

==
"This dissenting opinion is based on serious concerns about the Sub-Group's treatment of the substantial comments and proposals submitted during the public comment period by the Governments of Brazil, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (who are all active members of the GAC's Human Rights and International Law Working Group).
Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their responses. The governments are dismayed to note, however, that there are no changes of any significance to the draft FoI and Considerations documents that addresses any of the substantial issues which they raised.
In particular, the three Governments were in full agreement that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. However, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments.
Furthermore, the drafting team which was created by the Sub-Group in order to develop changes to the draft texts following consideration of the inputs received, lacked appropriate stakeholder balance as there was no open invitation to participate in the drafting team, which contributed to having no Government representation on this team.
This dissenting opinion is supported by Jorge Cancio (Switzerland) and Kavouss Arasteh (Iran), members of this Subgroup, and the representatives of the Governments of Brazil and UK who are observers on this Subgroup, and the representative of the Government of Peru.”
==

Thanks for including it in the final report to be transmitted to the CCWG Plenary for its consideration.

Kind regards

Jorge

Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] Im Auftrag von MSSI Secretariat
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2017 00:54
An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #32 | 29 August 2017

Hello all,

You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup - Meeting #32  –  29 August 2017  posted athttps://community.icann.org/x/LwIhB<http://community.icann.org/x/LwIhB>

The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call).

A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Yvette Guigneaux
(MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives
Projects & Operations Assistant.

ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email:  yvette.guigneaux at icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux at icann.org><mailto:yvette.guigneaux at icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux at icann.org>>
Cell:  +1-310-460-8432<tel:%2B1-310-460-8432><tel:%28310%29%20460-8432>
Skype:  yvette.guigneaux.icann
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org><http://www.icann.org/>

<image002.png>

Raw Captioning Notes
Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way.

•         Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_%20Human%20Rights_%20Meeting%2032_%2029AUG17.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1504045965699&api=v2>

•         PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Raw%20Transcript_%20Human%20Rights_%20Meeting%2032_%2029AUG17.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1504045991224&api=v2>
Decisions:  Decision taken to proceed with submitting the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration.
Action Items:  NTO to submit the revised report for CCWG-Plenary’s consideration.
Requests:  Members of the subgroup are seeking clarification on who has rights to file a Minority Statement, per the CCWG charter, and what has been done in the past:
•         Has an Observer filed a Minority Statement in CCWG Accountability before?
•         Has anyone who wasn't an official Member  (appointed from an SOAC)  filed a Minority Statement in CCWG before?
•         What the CCWG Charter say about who has rights to file a Minority Statement?
Documents - Revisions to HR Subgroup email to CCWG Plenary<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272111/Revisions%20to%20HR%20Subgroup%20email%20to%20CCWG%20Plenary%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1504013260000&api=v2>

________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________

Ws2-hr mailing list

Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

--

Matthew Shears

matthew at intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com><mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>>

+447712472987<tel:%2B447712472987>

Skype:mshears

_______________________________________________

Ws2-hr mailing list

Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org><mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr