[CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in bylaws spotted

Mon Apr 25 10:09:01 UTC 2016

Dear All
If everybody is onf the view that there is some legal inconsistencies then
lawyers need to explain and take remedial actions
Kavouss

2016-04-25 11:04 GMT+02:00 Corinne Cath <corinnecath at gmail.com>:

> + 1 James
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:23 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
>> No if that was the case there would not be a number of people pointing
>> this out.
>>
>> I agree with Neils Milton and Jorge that this is not an accurate
>> reflection of the proposal and needs to be changed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/04/2016, 08:33, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear All,
>> >Both texts say he same things but in a more structured manner
>> >Kavouss.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >> On 25 Apr 2016, at 08:58, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What do OUR lawyers have to say, who,signed off on this after all?
>> >>
>> >> el
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
>> >>
>> >>> On 25 Apr 2016, at 07:19, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>> 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
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >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/20160425/fcc3aa65/attachment.html>