[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted

[Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]

Dear all

If I did not misunderstand the intent of the CCWG report, it was intended to follow the same consensus-building method as for ws1 (and any other ccwg) recommendations. Hence, I feel Niels is right in that the draft Bylaws seem to establish a higher threshold.

Regards

Jorge 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever
Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. April 2016 20:01
An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted


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

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community