[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Hi all,
I certainly understand that there can be different interpretations of
the intent of the report.

The item (ii) of the bylaw in the report says: "*consensus
recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’
approval)".

We have even have different thresholds for consensus in the report
itself, which one is applicable here? What is the process for reaching
this consensus? The same as for WS1? Then we might need a reference to
WS1 may be? Furthermore: will everything developed in the WS2 require a
full consensus and approval of all COs? I read the chapter in the bylaws
about WS2 and it refers to the process and charter of WS1. No
requirement for full consensus or approval of the all the COs there. Why
does not HR bylaw refer to the previous section in the bylaw that
specifically outlines the requirements for Ws, but introduces the
approval of all COs instead? I don't mind this, but the clarification
seems to be necessary.

Is there already a definition of consensus for the purpose of the WS2
and if yes, is it the same that has been introduced for HR FOI in HR
bylaw text?  This is my question.

If the answer is "yes" - then there is no inconsistency. However, I
agree with Niels that this should be clarified, so we all will be on the
same page.

Cheers
Tanya

On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Are you saying that the bylaw text is different from the intent of the
> report as I don't think that is the case. The report indeed required
> approval of the CO which was rightly reflected as item ii in the bylaw
> text.
>
> I therefore think the bylaw text is consistent with the intent of the
> report.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 24 Apr 2016 7:01 p.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I hope this email finds you well. Upon re-reading the bylaw text I
>     came
>     across the following issue which does not seem to be in accordance
>     with
>     what we agreed in WS1.
>
>     The CCWG report says where it comes to Human Rights:
>
>     [ccwg report]
>
>      “Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect internationally
>     recognized
>      Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision does not
>     create any
>      additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any
>     complaint, request,
>      or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN. This
>     Bylaw
>      provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of
>     Interpretation for Human
>      Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a
>     consensus
>      recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’
>     approval)
>      and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same
>     process and
>
>     criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1
>     recommendations.”
>
>     [/ccwg report]
>
>     But when I look at the bylaw text it says:
>
>     [proposed bylaw]
>
>     The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no
>     force or
>     effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights
>     (“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i) the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>     recommendation in Work Stream 2, (ii) each of the
>     CCWG-Accountability’s
>     chartering organizations and (iii) the Board (in the case of the
>     Board,
>     using the same process and criteria used by the Board to consider the
>     Work Stream 1 Recommendations).
>
>     [/proposed bylaw]
>
>     Now it is explicitly required that all Chartering Organizations
>     approve
>     the Framework of Interpretation, whereas during WS1 it was agreed that
>     for WS2 we would use exactly the same process of approval as for WS1.
>
>     What makes this even more divergent is that this clause is only added
>     for Human Rights in the proposed bylaws and not for any other bylaw.
>     Whereas there was no exceptional procedure for human rights discussed
>     for WS2.
>
>     What I propose is to refer to the charter of the CCWG on
>     Accountability
>     for the decision making of all processes in WS2 (including the
>     decision
>     making on the FoI on Human Rights) and not create separate or new
>     requirements or processes.
>
>     All the best,
>
>     Niels
>
>
>
>     --
>     Niels ten Oever
>     Head of Digital
>
>     Article 19
>     www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>
>     PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                        678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160424/1f5f8113/attachment.html>