[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions

Sun Jan 17 16:52:30 UTC 2016

Just to be clear, I was speaking generally, not just on the HR rec.

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>

__________

On Jan 16, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>> wrote:

Some facts:

  *   it wasn’t only the board who expressed concerns: some other comments did
  *   on the call, there were different views expressed: some were for option A, others for option B and most for option C
  *   Option C is a compromise between A and B

Other facts:

  *   the issue of Human rights was raised at the beginning of our works, and the position of the CCWG members was « since ICANN is about names and numbers, and has nothing to do with the content, no need to address this issue ».
  *   It was raised again I think in Paris meeting, and the decision was to address it in work stream 2. and under the insistence of some, the CCWG decided to have a very high level mention on the issue in the proposal of Work Stream 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 16 janv. 2016 à 20:04, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> a écrit :

Agree with this. In addition to the Board's comments being the focus for the rec discussions (at least it appears that way to me) it seems like unless a comment is raised during the Adobe it is considered resolved. Not all commenters participate in the Adobe chats, but that should not mean their comments should be dismissed or downplayed.

__________

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/>

On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

Was also noticing how little time we spend stepping through all the
comments and answering them. Was wondering how we were coming to
consensus before having done so.

Don't wee need to have a response for all the comments on this draft?
Given that we are using the process we are using, perhaps for each
recommendation we are approaching consensus on we should check against
the comments to see what we may be missing. Each recommendation as it
nears completion could be taken by a few volunteers and checked against
the comments on that recommendation. These small teams could take
responsibility for drafting the responses as well.

I do not dispute the importance of coming to agreement with the Board,
but we must also deal with the rest of the comments in an proper
manner. Especially on areas where finding an agreement point with the
Board is challenging, the comments of the community can give us
direction and an sasist.

avri

On 15-Jan-16 18:50, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree and am concerned about the degree of automatic deference and preference for board desired outcomes over CCWG - Accountability participants and public comments in the organization of these discussions. For some reason, these discussions seem to each focus on the board objectives and comments and almost no attention to the comments of any other stakeholder. Let’s not forget many members of the public filed comments last month, expecting them to be discussed and incorporated. But it looks like the only concerns placed before us for consideration are the board comments/objectives. Let’s not forget the others!

Best,
Robin

On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net><mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:

Dear co-chairs (an all),

I am quite surprised by your proposal to invite members and board to
consider option C since WP4 and CCWG achieved consensus on option A,
which was reinforced by the independent lawyers advice. I really don't
think this work should be disregarded.

The ICANN lawyers did not provide examples, case-law or other documents
to outline any risk. So even though I am very willing to discuss, I see
no reason to only consider option C and I am very surprised that you as
co-chairs argue for that option even though consensus was reached
earlier on option A. As I said in my previous email, it is not
reasonable to consider option C before we agree that we won't proceed
with the option A.

All the best,

Niels

On 01/15/2016 05:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
_Sent on behalf of CoChairs _
_
_
Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call
#76. The updated document is attached.

1.Agreement to rely on target dates instead of hard deadlines, in line
with general approach agreed for WS2
2. Discussed comments (including Icann Board, RrSG…) requesting that the
inclusion of human rights language into the bylaws be delayed until the
proposed framework of interpretation was completed or even only be
considered in Work Stream 2.

a.Independent lawyer input has been provided and concludes : While
the addition of the proposed human rights bylaw provision should not
increase the exposure of ICANN to legal liability, we recognize that
special interest groups and individuals might seek to bring
non-meritorious claims, but the risk of meritless claims is already
a risk that ICANN faces.
b. Board clarified that concern included risk that IRP would
interpret the Bylaw language and create “case law policy” while the
FoI is finalized.
c. Consider Lawyer input suggestion as follows :

i. “ /expressly limiting the jurisdiction of any internal
dispute resolution systems within ICANN (such as the IRP) to
preclude claims of human rights violations that are not grounded
in a specific violation of an applicable law”./

3. Members and Board are invited to consider whether option c) could be
an acceptable way forward

a. Confirm recommendation bylaw language as part of WS1, despite
concerns expressed
b. Defer bylaw language adoption to WS2, when FoI is finalized

c. Adopt adjusted bylaw language as part of WS1 to clarify that it
can only be enforced or used in an IRP once the FoI is approved
(Such as : “This articles becomes effective 30 days after approval
of the FoI…”).

Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 19 January.

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>

--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org/><http://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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus><https://www.avast.com/antivirus%3Chttps://www.avast.com/antivirus%3E>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
_______________________________________________
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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>