<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Leon,</div><div>First of all, Happy New Year </div><div>Pls may you kindly comment on the matter as there are a lot of comments by CCWG Researchers .</div><div>Once again, it reveals that the Final reports lacks coherence in different parts of the report dealing with the same subject.</div><div>Regards.</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-01-04 23:30 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>The attached document shows the current email and a proposed revised email, which merely changes the texts quoted as suggested in my earlier email. I propose that the revised email be sent to the plenary, with a short note on top that says "Use this version of the email instead. The prior version inadvertently quoted from a draft version of the WS1 report." (or words to that effect).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It may seem picayune, but if we are asking the plenary how to interpret texts, we should give them the right texts.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><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">This may help<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/1996/lec.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.journallegalwriting<wbr>institute.org/archives/1996/le<wbr>c.pdf</a><span><br>
<br>
On 04/01/17 22:00, Greg Shatan 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>
On the second issue raised, I agree with Brett that the "if any"<br>
modifies the phrase "specific Human Rights conventions or other<br>
instruments," and not merely the "other instruments" part of that phrase.<br>
<br>
If I asked you "What salad or soup, if any, would you like as an<br>
appetizer?", I don't think you would assume that you are definitely<br>
getting salad (whether you like it or not) and your option not to have a<br>
dish is limited to declining the soup.<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br></span><span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.co<wbr>m</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
The first issue raised in this thread is a fact question with regard<br>
to what Annex 6 and Annex 12 actually say. I've gone back and<br>
looked at the Final Report and Annexes, dated February 23.<br>
Unfortunately, based on this review, there appear to be some errors<br>
in the email. It appears that an earlier version of CCWG Final<br>
Report and Annexes might have been used to grab the text quoted in<br>
the email.<br>
<br></span>
In Annex 6, _Paragraph 28_ (not _Paragraph 14_) contains the<span><br>
operative language. It is almost, but not quite, the same as the<br>
language quoted in the email. In either case, the paragraph does<br>
not contain the "if any" identified by Brett Schaeffer. This<br>
paragraph is part of a section entitled "Detailed Explanation of<br>
Recommendations," in a subsection entitled "Operationalizing the<br>
Commitment to Respect Human Rights." However, this paragraph is<br>
probably not the right one to quote from Annex 6, as there is<br></span>
another similar paragraph (_Paragraph 7_) in Annex 6, but it's in<span><br>
the section entitled "CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," which<br>
would seem to make it more authoritative than Paragraph 28.<br></span>
Paragraph 7 _does_ contain the "if any" identified by Brett.<span><br>
<br>
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:<br>
<br>
o Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:<br>
<br>
§ Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw.<br>
<br>
§ Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other<br>
instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and<br>
implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.<br>
<br>
§ Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect<br>
Human Rights.<br>
<br>
§ Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols,<br>
consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to<br>
ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.<br>
<br>
§ Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s<br>
consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee<br>
(GAC).<br>
<br>
§ Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s<br>
operations are carried out.<br>
<br>
§ Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw<br>
will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paragraph 28 reads as follows:<br>
<br>
28 The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work<br>
Stream 2 are:<br>
<br></span>
o Developing an FOI-HR for the Bylaw.<br>
o Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other<span><br>
instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and<br>
implementing the Bylaw.<br></span>
o Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN<span><br>
needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its<br>
commitment to respect Human Rights.<br></span>
o Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and<span><br>
drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the<br>
process, consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and<br>
protocols.<br></span>
o Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on<span><br>
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the GAC.<br></span>
o Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how<span><br>
ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is<br>
developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus<br>
recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering<br>
Organizations’ approval) and the FOI-HR is approved by the<br>
ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has<br>
committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations<br></span>
o Considering how the interpretation and implementation of<span><br>
this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN<br>
policies and procedures.<br>
<br>
It appears that the "if any" was added to Paragraph 7 in the CCWG<br>
draft of February 17, but the conforming change to paragraph 28 was<br>
never made.<br>
<br>
Annex 12 is also not accurately quoted. In the final<br></span>
version, _Paragraph 24_ (not _Paragraph 18_) _does_ contain the "if<div><div class="m_-6642659414852384945h5"><br>
any" identified by Brett. Paragraph 24 differs slightly from the<br>
quoted Paragraph 18 in other ways as well. It reads:<br>
<br>
24 To ensure that adding the proposed Human Rights Bylaw<br>
provision into the ICANN Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of<br>
ICANN’s Mission or scope, the CCWG -Accountability will develop a<br>
Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) as a consensus<br>
recommendation in Work Stream 2 to be approved by the ICANN Board<br>
using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1<br>
recommendations, and the Bylaw provision will not enter into force<br>
before the FOI-HR is in place. The CCWG-Accountability will consider<br>
the following as it develops the FOI-HR:<br>
<br>
· Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or<br>
other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting<br>
and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw.<br>
<br>
· Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN<br>
needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to<br>
respect Human Rights.<br>
<br>
· Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and<br>
protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and<br>
drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process.<br>
<br>
· Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on<br>
ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee (GAC).<br>
<br>
· Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how<br>
ICANN’s operations are carried out.<br>
<br>
· Consider how the interpretation and implementation of<br>
this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and<br>
procedures.<br>
<br>
<br>
It probably makes sense to send a revised letter with accurate<br>
quotations to the CCWG-Plenary, which doesn't meet for another<br>
week. I'm happy to prepare one and circulate it to the group.<br>
<br>
Apologies for the length of this email, but it's mostly quotes.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Nigel Roberts<br></div></div><div><div class="m_-6642659414852384945h5">
<<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a><wbr>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Just because you insist on something doesn't make you right.<br>
<br>
<br>
There's a saying in panto, which is traditional in this country<br>
at this time of year: "OH YES, IT DOES!"<br>
<br>
Actually, however, indeed, no, it doesn't.<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>
<br>
Man (Michael Palin): An argument isn't just contradiction.<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating (John Cleese): It can be.<br>
<br>
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of<br>
statements intended to establish a proposition.<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.<br>
<br>
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a<br>
contrary position.<br>
<br>
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!<br>
<br>
Man: No it isn't!<br>
<br>
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is<br>
just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other<br>
person makes.<br>
<br>
(short pause)<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.<br>
<br>
Man: It is.<br>
<br>
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.<br>
<br>
Man: Now look!. (MONTY PYTHON: THE ARGUMENT<br>
CLINIC)<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br></div></div>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>