<html>
<head>
<!-- Template generated by Exclaimer Mail Disclaimers on 01:22:49 Wednesday, 4 January 2017 -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">P.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27fTable {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<p class="8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f"></p>
<div>Kavouss, </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Incorrect. I offered the amended text on the call and it was clear that it was to apply to both. </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Best, </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Brett<br>
<br>
__________</div>
<div><br>
On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div>The qualifier " IF ANY " is pointed to <font color="#ff0000">or other instruments</font>/</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>Kavouss <span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p class="8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f"></p>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200">
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; "></span>
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; "><br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR: #004b8d; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://heritage.org/">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; "></span>
<p></p>
</font>
<p></p>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-01-04 18:37 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Brett<br>
<br>
If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction.<br>
<br>
If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation to take account of human rights laws.<br>
<br>
So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated.<span><br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<span>Niels,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which<br>
</span>specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/<span><br>
<br>
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human<br>
Rights Bylaw.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>
BrettSchaefer<span><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National<br>
Security and Foreign Policy<br>
The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a href="tel:202-608-6097" target="_blank" value="+12026086097">202-608-6097</a><br>
</span><a href="http://heritage.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">heritage.org</a> <<a href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://heritage.org/</a>><br>
<br>
*From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-co<wbr>mmunity-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
*Niels ten Oever<br>
*Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM<br>
*To:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
*Cc:* <a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
*Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear CCWG Plenary,<br>
<br>
We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared<br>
with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw.<br>
After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us<br>
to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are<br>
different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part,<br>
from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.<br>
<br>
That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where<br>
we should go next.<br>
<br>
In a bit more detail:<br>
<br>
Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:<br>
<br>
The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:<br>
• Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw.<br>
• Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other<br>
instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the<br>
Bylaw.<br>
• Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
• Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted<br>
to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent<br>
with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols.<br>
• Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s<br>
consideration of advice given by the GAC.<br>
• Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s<br>
operations are carried out<br>
<br>
Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:<br>
<br>
18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN<br>
Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the<br>
CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of<br>
Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following<br>
as it elaborates on the language to be used:<br>
• Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments<br>
should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human<br>
Rights Bylaw.<br>
• Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
• Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how<br>
these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad<br>
multistakeholder involvement in the process.<br>
• Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on<br>
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee (GAC).<br>
• Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations<br>
are carried out.<br>
• Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will<br>
interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.<br>
<br>
Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate<br>
task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand,<br>
Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate<br>
tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of<br>
Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine<br>
what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of<br>
Interpretation we have completed.<br>
<br>
In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of<br>
Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be<br>
interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be<br>
“operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential<br>
consequences this might have.<br>
<br>
The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:<br>
<br>
1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary.<br>
2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential<br>
amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations<br>
listed in Annex 6.<br>
3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of<br>
the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on<br>
what potential next steps could be<br>
4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see<br>
whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested<br>
by the plenary would be helpful.)<br>
<br>
We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led<br>
us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human<br>
Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in<br>
PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we<br>
were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of<br>
our Subgroup.<br>
<br>
5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1<br>
and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and<br>
AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human<br>
Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO<br>
Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw<br>
should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and<br>
implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the<br>
other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c)<br>
chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps<br>
needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of<br>
the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in<br>
their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by<br>
ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human<br>
resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.<br>
<br>
We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and<br>
we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other<br>
options.<br>
<br>
The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and<br>
we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2<br>
with you all in 2017.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
</div>
</div>
<a rel="noreferrer" href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a> <<a rel="noreferrer" href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">http://www.article19.org</a>><span><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
</span><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-C<wbr>ommunity@icann.org</a>><br>
<a rel="noreferrer" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a rel="noreferrer" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a rel="noreferrer" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>