[Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
Wed Sep 27 12:54:22 UTC 2017
I would like to express my full support for the views of both David and
Greg.
Matthew
On 27/09/2017 00:07, Greg Shatan wrote:
> All,
>
> With regard to the statement "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,"I am still at a loss to understand what was not
> "inclusive" about the efforts of the Subgroup and in particular our
> Rapporteur, Niels ten Oever.
>
> Since the reference to the last drafting team was removed, I assume it
> was not the drafting team. Since the drafting team did most of its
> work on the main Subgroup list, was open to everybody (minor
> procedural flaws in the call for volunteers aside), and the drafting
> team's suggested changes were not even adopted, that seems like the
> right result.
>
> In any event there were ample opportunities to contribute suggested
> alternatives to the list -- the drafting team did not have a monopoly.
>
> If the drafting team isn't the issue, then what was the issue? The
> floor and the email list were open at all times to all participants in
> the Subgroup. No one in the Subgroup was excluded.
>
> The public comments were read, fully considered and extensively
> discussed. There is no presumption that any particular public comment
> or comments will result in a change to a draft Report. As such, while
> "Their expectation was that a properly balanced result would reflect
> some if not all of the positions and proposals made in their
> responses," there was no basis for that expectation.
>
> The consideration of public comments is too nuanced to reduce to
> simple rules, but I have observed that public comments that do result
> in changes tend to fall into the following categories: (1) suggestions
> that do not change the substance, but improve the expression, (2)
> comments that bring new facts to light, so that the basis of the
> recommendation is no longer accurate, or (3) multiple diverse comments
> that persuasively show the group that they got it wrong the first time
> and that they have missed the sense of the multistakeholder
> community. The comments in question, eloquent and well stated though
> they may have been, did none of the above.
>
> One category of public comment that has not been particularly
> effective, in my experience, is a comment from a group participant (or
> related participants) that seeks to accomplish a substantive change
> via comment what was not accomplished in the group. In part, this may
> be because it is not a new voice or viewpoint for the Subgroup. (Of
> course I understand that the participants here were individuals while
> the comments came from entities, but that is typical -- most
> participants do not file individual comments.)
>
> In any event, if the process was not the problem, what was the
> problem, aside from disappointment in the result -- that what was a
> minority position remained a minority position?
>
> I note that the dissent, although advertised as concentrating on
> substance, actually contains little substance, aside from the
> statement that "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."
>
> What's missing is a statement identifying the portion of the Subgroup
> report where the submitters did not join the consensus. (I am
> assuming that they are not dissenting from the whole of the
> document.) What's also missing is the actual "minority position" --
> the text that the dissent would have supported if it had been in the
> Report. Without these elements, the dissent regrettably reads more
> like a complaint than a minority report.
>
> Finally, I would note that the formal predicate for including a
> minority report is that it comes from the Subgroup participants who
> did not join the group's consensus. As such, it seems out of order to
> include any submitters other than participants. I suppose we are
> being a little more relaxed, since this is merely CCWG business.
> However, if the dissent insists on including a minority report in the
> full CCWG report put out for public comments, I hope that the process
> will be honored.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:31 PM, McAuley, David via Ws2-hr
> <ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear co-chairs and all,
>
> I plan to participate in the CCWG Plenary tomorrow, but it will be
> from a public setting where I will most likely be unable to
> comment other than by chat.
>
> Thus, I wish to respond to Jorge’s email here (noting as well that
> I participated in the drafting team that is at the center of some
> of the concern that has lately arisen).
>
> First, let me say that it has been a pleasure to be a part of the
> Subgroup on HR. The subgroup was very well led, and participants
> included serious, principled, and thoughtful individuals on all
> sides of the issues discussed.
>
> With respect to the draft ‘dissenting opinion,’ it is, in my
> opinion, difficult not to embrace the public comments of the
> governments of Brazil, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom when it
> comes to HR.
>
> Nonetheless, that is where I find myself on the narrow issue of
> making stronger reference to the Ruggie Principles (UN Guiding
> Principles on Business and Human Rights – UNGP) in the HR FOI and
> Considerations document.
>
> The subgroup draft appears to me to be properly balanced by
> stating that certain aspects of the UNGP could be considered as a
> useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value.
>
> Under the UNGP, the responsibility to respect human rights
> requires that businesses, among other things, seek to mitigate
> adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their
> operations or services by their “business relationships,” even if
> they have not contributed to those impacts. This is one
> particular area of my concern when it comes to ICANN, which as a
> ‘business’ is unique.
>
> “Business relationships” is a very broad term in the UNGP -
> including relationships with business partners, entities in its
> value chain, and any others directly linked to its business
> operations, products or services. That must include registrants,
> among others.
>
> And while the UNGP try to accommodate various complexities, they
> still provide that If the business enterprise has leverage to
> prevent or mitigate the adverse impact, it should exercise it.
>
> It seems to me this aspect of the UNGP could inappropriately force
> ICANN into content issues outside its narrow mission.
>
> The new Core Value is a part of ICANN’s bylaws and as such is
> subject to IRP claims where potential claimants allege that ICANN
> violated the Core Value by its action or inaction. HR-based claims
> will almost inevitably wind up in front of the
> soon-to-be-constituted IRP panel. These (at least) seven new
> panelists will be drawn from legal circles independent of ICANN.
> There is simply no way to envision how they would interpret
> reference to the UNGP and no guarantee that this new
> precedent-setting body might not try to stretch ICANN’s mission to
> accommodate the UNGP. They will receive training on the DNS but we
> have no idea whether or to what extent they might appreciate
> ICANN’s unique mission, especially at the outset of their work
> where they will nevertheless have the power to set precedent.
>
> In its eloquent public comment, the government of the UK remarked
> that absent a stronger reference to UNGP the ICANN community would
> effectively miss an opportunity “to be a global transnational
> beacon for advancing corporate respect for human rights.”
>
> I respectfully disagree, thinking that ICANN has embraced that
> opportunity by explicitly adopting a core value aimed at
> respecting HR.
>
> Given ICANN’s unique mission (and potential damage from
> mission-creep), its open and participatory community, and the
> newness of the IRP panel to come, there appears to be no
> demonstrable need to make reference to the UNGP at present, but
> downside-risk does seem possible. If the community in the future
> discerns that such a need has subsequently arisen, then steps can
> be taken at that time to consider such a reference as
> appropriately tailored to take account of ICANN’s uniqueness. By
> that time, presumably, the IRP panel will have taken shape and
> have become a little more predictable than it is at the moment.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <tel:%28703%29%20948-4154>
>
> *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>] *On Behalf Of
> *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 5:46 AM
> *To:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-hr] WG: dissenting opinion -
> final-final text for CCWG
>
> For your information
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 18. September 2017 11:45
> *An:* 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>; 'Thomas Rickert'
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; 'Jordan Carter'
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
> *Cc:* 'Niels ten Oever' <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>; 'Bernard Turcotte'
> <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>;
> 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>; 'Mark Carvell'
> <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
> <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>>; 'María Milagros Castañon
> Seoane' <mcastanon at rree.gob.pe <mailto:mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>>;
> 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira' <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>
> *Betreff:* AW: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
>
> Dear co-chairs and all,
>
> I note with appreciation the constructive and forward-looking
> Email Thomas Rickert sent on your behalf last week on the
> constitution of “drafting teams”.
>
> In order to allow for an as constructive as possible discussion on
> the CCWG Plenary on September 27, I would like to file with you
> the following /_amended version of our dissent_/, which tries to
> focus only on the substantive issues that hopefully may be bridged
> during our discussions in the CCWG Plenary:
>
> "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
> issueswhich 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.
>
> 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.”
>
> Hope this may be helpful.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 13. September 2017 08:35
> *An:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Jordan Carter
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>; Bernard Turcotte
> <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>;
> Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>; Mark Carvell
> <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
> <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>>; María Milagros Castañon
> Seoane <mcastanon at rree.gob.pe <mailto:mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>>;
> Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>
> *Betreff:* AW: dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
>
> Dear Co-Chairs and all,
>
> For your convenience, here is the clean text version of the
> dissent we would like to be submitted to the Plenary for its
> consideration:
>
> "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
> issueswhich 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, 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 again and regards
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 13. September 2017 07:03
> *An:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Jordan Carter
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>; Bernard Turcotte
> <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>;
> Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>; Mark Carvell
> <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
> <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>>; María Milagros Castañon
> Seoane <mcastanon at rree.gob.pe <mailto:mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>>;
> Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>
> *Betreff:* dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
>
> Dear Co-Chairs
>
> please find below for your convenience and in order to avoid any
> misunderstandings on the final text, the final version of the
> dissenting opinion we have filed for Plenary.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> *Datum:* 5. September 2017 um 12:33:00 MESZ
> *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
> *Cc:* thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>
> <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>, ws2-hr at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org> <ws2-hr at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>, lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net> <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>
> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final version for
> transmittal to CCWG plenary
>
> Thanks to Greg for this thorough investigation to the origins of
> the „drafting team“. Apparently only the transcript of the call on
> August 8^th 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
> issueswhich 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 constitutionopen 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>>
> *Cc:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>; lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>; thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>; 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>> 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:%28520%29%20629-4428> office
>
>
> 520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> 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>]*On Behalf Of
> *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>
> *Cc:* thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;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 issueswhich 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>]*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>>
> *Cc:* 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,_D_ecisions, _A_ction _I_tems,
> _R_equests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG
> Accountability WS2*Human Rights Subgroup - Meeting #32 *– *29
> August 2017* posted at https://community.icann.org/x/LwIhB
> <https://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>
>
> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 <tel:%28310%29%20460-8432>
>
> Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann
>
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>
>
> *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>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <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
> <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
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170927/cb3eadd5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170927/cb3eadd5/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2503 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170927/cb3eadd5/image002-0001.png>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list