[Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG

Wed Sep 27 14:05:18 UTC 2017

Anne was more succinct than me.  I agree with Anne.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> While it’s true this has been discussed at length, I am concerned that the
> statement as it stands implies that Niels somehow failed to manage an
> inclusive process in the Subgroup.  This is untrue.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Thomas Rickert
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:57 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan
> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] dissenting opinion - final-final text for CCWG
>
>
>
> Hi Greg, all,
>
> Thanks for your message. With respect to the minority report. We have
> discussed the issue, both substance as well as procedure at length.
> Subsequently, the process point has kindly been edited by Jorge. I suggest
> we let that point rest now.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Am 27.09.2017 um 05:07 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> 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> 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 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 5:46 AM
> *To:* 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>; 'Thomas
> Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net>; 'Jordan Carter' <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc:* 'Niels ten Oever' <lists at nielstenoever.net>; 'Bernard Turcotte' <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; 'Mark
> Carvell' <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>; 'María Milagros Castañon Seoane' <
> mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>; 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira' <
> 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>; Thomas Rickert <
> thomas at rickert.net>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>; Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Mark
> Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>; María Milagros Castañon Seoane <
> mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <
> 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>; Thomas Rickert <
> thomas at rickert.net>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>; Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Mark
> Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>; María Milagros Castañon Seoane <
> mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <
> 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>
> *Datum:* 5. September 2017 um 12:33:00 MESZ
> *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
> AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc:* thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>,
> ws2-hr at icann.org <ws2-hr at icann.org>, lists at nielstenoever.net <
> 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 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 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
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 5. September 2017 08:21
> *An:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> lists at nielstenoever.net; thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br; 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>
> 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 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> <image001.png>
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:04 AM
> *To:* lists at nielstenoever.net
> *Cc:* thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br;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
> <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>
> *Cc:* 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 <(310)%20460-8432>
>
> Skype:  yvette.guigneaux.icann
>
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170927/70ee429a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170927/70ee429a/image003-0001.png>