[Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Thu Sep 28 20:13:44 UTC 2017
Sorry for the last minute email - I am travelling.
I first of all do not accept the changes proposed last minute before the
plenary and unilaterally.
Secondly, I think the text was more balanced before. I do not understand
why we will discuss last minute proposals on the plenary call if we
haven't discussed them in the group properly.
I assume the only way for me to go is to object on the plenary call.
Cheers,
Tanya
On 28/09/17 15:57, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> I agree with Matthew.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Matthew Shears
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:51 AM
> *To:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28
> September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to
> bridge divergences
>
>
>
> I will not be on the call so provide my views below.
>
> I am not sure this proposed insertion of text does much and is far
> more prescriptive than anything we have in the FOI.
>
> I would recall that we have the following in the Considerations, which
> is more than adequate and does not in any way preclude the use of the
> Ruggie principles.
>
> "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 our work we were deliberately cautious, for many of the reasons
> David has outlined in prior e-mails. Those concerns remain as far as
> I am concerned.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 28/09/2017 10:43, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. Ahead of todays plenary
> call I wanted to gauge the opinions vis a vis Jorge's compromise
> proposal below.
>
> I am greatly looking forward to hear what you think.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> On 09/28/2017 02:21 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the
> following proposal that would constitute in my view an
> acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework
> of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by
> Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the
> exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup.
>
>
>
> Specifically, I would like to propose that the following
> paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human
> rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red):
>
>
>
> “/By committing to one or more of these international
> instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights
> in their national legislation*. */
>
> */The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are
> relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the
> Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business,
> the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a
> useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*
>
>
>
> The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights
> (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for
> business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be
> mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally
> recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of
> the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there
> is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for
> ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is
> constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful
> guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger
> of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.
>
>
>
> I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively
> considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by
> me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has
> not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with
> the other participants joining the dissent.
>
>
>
> Best 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] *Im
> Auftrag von *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34
> *An:* turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
> <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28
> September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting
> opinion* attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with
> the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core
> Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed
> together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share
> some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG
> Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.
>
>
>
> The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel
> that the public comment period showed the existence of two
> schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text
> sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and
> a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ,
> and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the
> recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles).
>
>
>
> However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup
> did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have
> reflected at least some if not all of the positions and
> proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in
> particular, _that the FOI text should make stronger reference
> to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary
> international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup did not
> undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a
> compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate
> this position of the three governments.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary
> could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a
> broader consensus on this important issue should be made_ – a
> broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views
> expressed during the public comment period.
>
>
>
> Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report
> together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with
> the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly
> sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call_.
>
>
>
> I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and
> obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be
> happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to
> your feedback.
>
>
>
> For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but
> I’m (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD
> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very
> thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call
> instead if possible.
>
>
>
> 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] *Im
> Auftrag von *Bernard Turcotte
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05
> *An:* Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28
> September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28
> September plenary.
>
>
>
> As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the
> plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two
> hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week
> given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an
> additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September
> 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27
> September 1300 UTC still stands).
>
>
>
> Also please note that given the large volume of documents we
> will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size
> limit issues for participants.
>
>
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
> or problems with the documents.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bernard Turcotte
>
> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>
>
>
> *Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28
> September*
>
> * *
>
> 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of
> behavior
>
> 2. Review of Agenda
>
> 3. Administration
>
> 3.1.Review timeline.
>
> 3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.
>
> 3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi
>
> 4. Legal Committee Update
>
> 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman
> recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed
> Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal
> on approval of Co-chairs).
>
> 4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the
> sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16
> were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider
> these and provide written feedback to the sub-group.
>
> 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)
>
> 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the
> Diversity sub-group.
>
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927
> (attached - same document as distributed to the 30
> August plenary)
>
> 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC
> Accountability sub-group.
>
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927
> (attached)
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927
> (attached)
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927
> (attached)
>
> 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human
> Rights sub-group.
>
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927
> (attached)
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses
> (attached)
>
> 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds
> sub-group (please note that the final report of the external
> review is provided as a separate file due to size issues)
>
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927
> (attached in second email)
> o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached
> in second email)
>
> 10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff
> Accountability sub-group.
>
> o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6
> (attached in second email)
> o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927
> (attached in second email)
>
> 11.AOB
>
> 12.Next Plenaries
>
> 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC
>
> 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but
> please schedule)
>
> 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional
> but please schedule)
>
> 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC
>
> 13.Adjournment
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-hr mailing list
>
> 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>
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170928/62ec7cc1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170928/62ec7cc1/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list