<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'>I whole heartedly disagree. Any government which oppresses civil society domestically cannot be expected to embrace a multistakeholder process that explicitly empowers civil society. It is in their interest to see such a mechanism fail in favor of a mechanism that exclude civil society at a minimum and ideally revert to a multilateral model. Moreover, even non-state actors beholden to such states walk a fine line.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'>This is far from silly, it’s quite rational. Game theory 101.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'>Best regards, <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'>John Laprise, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#0563C1'>http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/</span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I do not think that governments ever played and games at all.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Moreover, it is inappropriate to categorize comments made as being silly.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>I was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states.<br><br>Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>Robin</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Dear Jorge,<br>><br>> We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether<br>> people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown<br>> screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with<br>> the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a<br>> consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can<br>> confirm that.<br>><br>> We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad<br>> participation.<br>><br>> The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and<br>> discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position<br>> could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2<br>> charter to follow the appropriate process.<br>><br>> We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text<br>> that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> Niels<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>>> Dear Niels,<br>>><br>>> I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and<br>>> requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that<br>>> prove them wrong.<br>>><br>>> Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not<br>>> able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a<br>>> not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on<br>>> what is on the record of this Subgroup.<br>>><br>>> Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards<br>>><br>>> Jorge<br>>><br>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niels ten Oever<br>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017<br>>> 11:57 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>;<br>>> <a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a> Cc: <a href="mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br">thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br</a>;<br>>> <a href="mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a>; <a href="mailto:mcastanon@rree.gob.pe">mcastanon@rree.gob.pe</a>;<br>>> <a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>;<br>>> <a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>; <a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a> Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr]<br>>> Outcomes of todays call<br>>><br>>> Dear all,<br>>><br>>> Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from<br>>> GAC representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated<br>>> and welcomed.<br>>><br>>> I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help<br>>> us improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our<br>>> next call on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.<br>>><br>>> Best,<br>>><br>>> Niels<br>>><br>>> On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>>>> Dear Niels,<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> /"Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first<br>>>> reading by the participants present with the understanding that<br>>>> there will be an opportunity for participants to post a minority<br>>>> opinion statement. The rapporteur will communicate this to the list<br>>>> and all such minority opinion statements will be due in writing by<br>>>> the next call of the sub-group if they are to be considered for<br>>>> inclusion in the final report. The next call of the sub-group is<br>>>> scheduled for Tuesday 29 August 1900 UTC."/<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown<br>>>> after checking the "raw caption" and the chat transcript of<br>>>> yesterday's call.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> *1. **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the<br>>>> "drafting group" by "unanimous consent" aka "unanimously approved"<br>>>> as summarized on the "outcomes"*<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants<br>>>> in the call expressed their explicit support to the documents<br>>>> presented by you. The meaning of "unanimous" requires explicit<br>>>> support. Besides "unanimous consent" or "unanimous approval" are no<br>>>> decision-making categories in this CCWG as far as I am aware of.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such<br>>>> an explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of<br>>>> members and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the<br>>>> documents. Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word<br>>>> "unanimous" _/<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as<br>>>> Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in<br>>>> agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents.<br>>>> At most there is simply a call for "comments" on the wording of the<br>>>> message to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your<br>>>> first intervention).<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be<br>>>> considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on<br>>>> the different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid<br>>>> alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the<br>>>> Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been<br>>>> presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present<br>>>> the options to the Subgroup. This was not done.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by<br>>>> "consensus" was a foregone conclusion during all the call - the<br>>>> only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined<br>>>> "minority" opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that<br>>>> there was "consent". Such "consent" was not called for during the<br>>>> call._/<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> *2. **Level of "consensus" designation. *<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone<br>>>> designation of the level of agreement within the subgroup. As<br>>>> Bernie mentions and cautions you during the call there are "4<br>>>> participants in 4 governments" disagreeing with the documents.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection<br>>>> during the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done<br>>>> implicitly, the dissenting position is in my view strong enough to<br>>>> prevent a "consensus" from emerging. After all we are not counting<br>>>> heads here, but also have to consider stakeholder balance and<br>>>> diversity.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process<br>>>> should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying<br>>>> away from these principles.<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Kind regards<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Jorge<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017<br>>>> 22:45 *An:* <a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a>; Niels ten Oever<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of<br>>>> todays call<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Dear Niels,<br>>>><br>>>> what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the<br>>>> call and how many expressed such explicit support?<br>>>><br>>>> Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the<br>>>> call?<br>>>><br>>>> thanks<br>>>><br>>>> Jorge<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>><br>>>><br>> --<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> *Von:* Niels ten Oever <<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a><br>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>>> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um<br>>>> 22:01:09 MESZ *An:* <a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a>><br>>>> <<a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a>>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr]<br>>>> Outcomes of todays call<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Human Rights sub-group participants,<br>>>><br>>>> On today's Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our<br>>>> report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous<br>>>> consent (documents attached).<br>>>><br>>>> The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree<br>>>> with portions of the report were unable to attend the call and<br>>>> therefore as per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only<br>>>> constitute a consensus decision.<br>>>><br>>>> It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a<br>>>> minority opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to<br>>>> do so.<br>>>><br>>>> As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should<br>>>> be available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they<br>>>> can be considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29<br>>>> August 19:00 UTC.<br>>>><br>>>> Best,<br>>>><br>>>> Niels<br>>>><br>>>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital<br>>>><br>>>> Article 19 <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a> <<a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">http://www.article19.org</a>><br>>>><br>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D<br>>>> 68E9<br>>>><br>>><br>>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital<br>>><br>>> Article 19 <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a><br>>><br>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>>><br>><br>> --<br>> Niels ten Oever<br>> Head of Digital<br>><br>> Article 19<br>> <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a><br>><br>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> _______________________________________________<br>> Ws2-hr mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ws2-hr mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>