[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Niels ten Oever
lists at nielstenoever.net
Tue May 3 16:35:30 UTC 2016
Fully agree with Greg.
Best,
Niels
On 05/03/2016 05:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Responses inline below.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Greg, my reference was bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 and not 27.
>
> This seems like an attempt to create an aura of misunderstanding where
> there is none. Paragraph 27 is a graphic with (quite clearly) no bullet
> points. My reference was a simple typo, nothing more. Hardly worthy of
> the lead sentence of your reply.
>
>
> I have never written that high standard be applied;
>
> You seem to be writing exactly that, repeatedly. Unless, I
> misunderstand your viewpoint, you contend that the approval of all
> Chartering Organizations be required. With the Work Stream 1 Proposal,
> it was sufficient that the Proposal had the approval of the ALAC, ASO,
> ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC and a non-objection by the GAC. Isn't it your
> position that this should be insufficient for the FoI? If so, that is
> unquestionably a higher standard.
>
> I have always quoted what the report clearly stated, which is that
> approval of CO was required for the FoI
>
> I disagree that this is what the report clearly states. You are using
> the parenthetical as your sole support for the claim that the CCWG
> wanted a heightened level of approval for the FOI. My recollection was
> that this parenthetical was put in solely to clarify that the FOI does
> not go directly from the WG to the Board, but rather needs a a review by
> the COs. I don't think there is any basis for bootstrapping that
> statement into a heightened standard of review and approval -- but
> apparently you do.
>
> but you seem to counter that with intent and a reference and I have
> told you was rather referring to board's approval process(bullet6
> para28). By the way, the phrase "including Chartering Organizations’
> approval" was repeated 3 times in that report. It's not just a
> coincidence.
>
> Again, that's the parenthetical. I've dealt with that above and
> before. I've asked you for a clear and unequivocal statement that shows
> that the CCWG intended to create a unique and higher standard for the
> Chartering Organization's review of the FOI. You have not provided
> one. Clearly, this is because such a statement does not exist. Again,
> given all the time we have spent saying and writing things about levels
> of review, it is unimaginable that we would create a higher level of
> review with no explanation or discussion. As such, the idea that the
> Proposal should be seen as creating such a higher level of review solely
> for the FOI is unsupportable.
>
> They say "iron sharpen iron" as I am not a lawyer, I obviously
> cannot convince you on this one ;-). At this point, I will rest my
> case since irrespective of what I say and the references I provide
> in the report, you counter it with intent and what was said.
>
> I've dealt with your references, which are roundly unconvincing. At no
> point have I relied on "what was said" in the sense of a verbal
> utterance. As pointed out before, in colloquial English, it's common to
> write that "a report says" something, when what is meant is that
> something is written in the report. So again that's an attempt to
> create an aura of misunderstanding where there is none.
>
>
> I hope my point has been duly noted by the Co-Chairs, irrespective
> of route we take it should be based on the decision of the group as
> per the charter. Apologies in advance for the upcoming meeting (will
> join if I can)
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 11:08 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the
> Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It
> stated the _intent_ behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think
> any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our
> intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in
> indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of
> the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to
> draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why
> paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not
> to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with
> the following */intent/* in Work Stream 1 recommendations"
> [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the
> "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be
> adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and
> it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to
> language in a "bylaws" section.
>
> Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review
> by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique
> and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and
> unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that
> the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the
> Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the
> work of the CCWG.
>
> Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the
> discussion" on this particular point, show me in the
> transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of
> paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply
> parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there
> was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference
> to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to
> create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any
> contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
>
> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you
> referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of
> which I quote below :
>
> "...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.”
>
> OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process
> to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge
> debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph
> 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
>
> "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
> ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is
> developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
> recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering
> Organizations’ approval)* and 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*"
>
> Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet
> point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering
> Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that
> paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just
> one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
>
> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the
> report, which is the following:
>
> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP
> challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw
> until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights
> (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work
> Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that
> *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same
> process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed
> for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
>
> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in
> the report, and we need to give this effect. The
> language in the draft circulated for comment is
> inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it
> appears to require the positive approval of all
> Chartering Organizations, which would be a
> _different_ process than the one used for Work Stream 1
> recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
>
> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the
> parenthetical about the chartering organizations was
> inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All
> that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the
> FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to
> the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering
> Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations
> were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent
> to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed
> for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
>
> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement
> that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard
> for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm
> confident there is no such statement. We spent many,
> many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels
> of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to
> levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies
> logic to claim that the simple insertion of a
> parenthetical, without any specific discussion or
> explanation of a heightened standard, created a
> requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
>
> Greg
>
> ______
> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In
> either case, I was referring to the report, not to some
> verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial
> use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable
> to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least
> in everyday usage.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Depends on how you are interpreting the word
> "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single
> document, while some COs decided to approve/respond
> recommendation by recommendation, others approved
> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple
> application of the report(if you want to avoid round
> trips proposed in the report without distorting the
> intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single
> recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option
> to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG
> can determine what to do with the FoI based on the
> outcome of the COs approval process.
>
> On your second point, at this juncture I am not
> talking about what we said but rather about what we
> WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have
> not followed the process would rely upon. So do you
> want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote"
> either of them is fine by me but we should be clear
> on the path we have chosen, knowing it's
> implications as well.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> At no point did we say that the FoI would be
> bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a
> complete package. Indeed, we've never said that
> any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with
> others.
>
> At no point did we say that there would be a
> special process for approving the FoI. It
> should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a
> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then
> allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the
> Board even if less than all of the COs approve
> of the recommendation.
>
> As long as we can find ways to reflect that
> clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of
> the Proposal.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> If I process this correctly, it implies
> approval of the FoI will be done based on
> ratification process in the CCWG charter,
> which is different from approval of the
> whole WS2 package as per the charter.
>
> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat
> closer to what was proposed in the report
> (even though the report did not mention that
> CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"
> <thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Tijani has proposed a solution at the
> end of his latest e-mail:
>
> I understand that the first proposal
> made the approval of all the chartering
> organizations necessary, The
> modification should keep the reference
> to the ratification of the chartering
> organizations and add "as defined in the
> CCWG charter“.
>
> Would that be a way forward?
>
> Best,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun
>> Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> Hello Niels,
>>
>> I think we may just be playing around
>> with words here, definitely you
>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let
>> me attempt to spell out(even though I
>> have done this before) my
>> understanding of the report which I
>> must say is obvious:
>>
>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase
>> "...*including* approval of chartering
>> organisations"
>>
>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's
>> equivalent to the CO approval within
>> CCWG may be out of order because as
>> per the charter irrespective of number
>> of support from CO, the package goes
>> to board for approval.
>>
>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not
>> the same thing as item 1; What I
>> understand is that the FoI as a
>> critical document it is needs to be
>> developed during WS2, approved by the
>> CO and incoporated into the WS2
>> proposal which is then sent to COs for
>> approval as a complete package.
>>
>> That said, i will again say that if
>> the goal is to reflect what was
>> written in the report then we are out
>> of order. However we may just agree
>> that what we have done is correcting a
>> *mistake* in the report through the
>> bylaw. In that case, we should present
>> it as such and not on claims that the
>> report did not say approval of CO is
>> required.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten
>> Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tijani,
>>
>> But the chartering organizations
>> are mentioned in the charter of the
>> CCWG, so am not sure if I
>> understand your concern.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN
>> JEMAA wrote:
>> > Hi Niels,
>> >
>> > The last modification of the
>> bylaws proposed by the lawyers
>> didn’t make
>> > any reference to the chartering
>> organizations approval while it is
>> > clearly mentioned in the CCWG
>> last proposal ratified by the
>> chartering
>> > organizations.
>> >
>> > Have a nice day
>> >
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> > Executive Director
>> > Mediterranean Federation of
>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> > Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>> > +216 52 385 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels
>> ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>> >> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>>
>> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,
>> >>
>> >> Could you please indicate where
>> the proposed text is not
>> consistent with
>> >> the report? Concrete references
>> would be helpful for me to better
>> >> understand your point.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >>
>> >> Niels
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss
>> Arasteh wrote:
>> >>> Tijani +1
>> >>> I fully agree with Tijani
>> >>> People misuse the opportunity
>> to make modifications that were
>> not agreed
>> >>> during the lkast 16 months
>> >>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
>> >>> During the WSIS I WILL tell
>> everybody that there is no
>> supervision nor
>> >>> control on what we have agreed
>> and the people will make whatever
>> change
>> >>> they wish without the
>> agreements of the others
>> >>>
>> >>> KAVOUSS
>> >>>
>> >>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00
>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>> >>>
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
>> >>>
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Mathieu and all,
>> >>>
>> >>> The modification proposed
>> doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal
>> >>> approved by the chartering
>> organization. I don’t think we are
>> >>> allowed to write bylaws
>> that are not the exact
>> interpretation of the
>> >>> approved document that had
>> the CCWG consensus and the charting
>> >>> organizations ratification.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> >>> Executive Director
>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of
>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> >>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>> >>> +216 52 385 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>> >>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23,
>> Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>>
>> a écrit :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mathieu,
>> >>>> Tks
>> >>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS
>> OBJECTIONS to:
>> >>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE
>> TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING
>> >>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
>> >>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET
>> AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH
>> YET TO BE
>> >>>> DRAFTED.
>> >>>> 3. Making so many changes
>> to the Third proposals . We must avoid
>> >>>> having a new proposal
>> >>>> Kavouss
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00
>> Mathieu Weill
>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear colleagues,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please find below for
>> your consideration some
>> suggestions from
>> >>>> our lawyers for
>> clarification of the bylaw
>> language regarding
>> >>>> the Human rights FoI.
>> This follows our request during the
>> >>>> previous call.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mathieu Weill
>> >>>> ---------------
>> >>>> Depuis mon mobile,
>> désolé pour le style
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Début du message
>> transféré :
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> *Expéditeur:*
>> "Gregory, Holly"
>> <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>>
>> >>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016
>> 19:10:53 UTC+2
>> >>>>> *Destinataire:*
>> "'Mathieu Weill'"
>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>,
>> "'Thomas Rickert'"
>> >>>>> <thomas at rickert.net
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
>> >>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>,
>> León Felipe
>> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>,
>> "bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>"
>> <bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>>
>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>> <acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>,
>> "Rosemary E. Fei"
>> >>>>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>> >>>>>
>> "ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>"
>> >>>>>
>> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG
>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>>,
>> >>>>>
>> "Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>"
>> >>>>>
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>>
>> >>>>> *Objet:* *Human
>> Rights Transition Provision:
>> Bylaws Section
>> >>>>> 27.3(a)*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and
>> Bylaws Coordinating Group:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On the CCWG call last
>> week, there was a discussion of the
>> >>>>> Bylaws language
>> regarding the transition provision
>> on Human
>> >>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)]
>> and it was suggested that the
>> language be
>> >>>>> clarified to ensure
>> that the same approval process
>> used for
>> >>>>> Work Stream 1 would
>> apply. We propose the following
>> >>>>> clarifying edits. We
>> suggest that you share this with the
>> >>>>> CCWG and if there is
>> agreement, the following proposed edit
>> >>>>> should be included in
>> the CCWG’s public comment:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Redline:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>> RIGHTS____*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (a) 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) approved for
>> submission to the Board by the
>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability
>> as a consensus recommendation in Work
>> >>>>> Stream 2, and (ii)
>> approved by each of the
>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s
>> chartering organizations and (iii) the
>> >>>>> Board, (in each
>> thecase of the Board, using the
>> same process
>> >>>>> and criteria used by
>> the Boardto consider the as for Work
>> >>>>> Stream 1
>> Recommendations).____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (b) No person or
>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>> >>>>> reconsideration
>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>> or the
>> >>>>> independent review
>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>> >>>>> solely on the
>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>> forth in
>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>> contemplated
>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>> >>>>> or the Board that
>> occurred prior to the____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> effectiveness of the
>> FOI-HR.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Clean:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>> RIGHTS____*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (a) 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 (i)
>> approved
>> >>>>> for submission to the
>> Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a
>> >>>>> consensus
>> recommendation in Work Stream 2
>> and (ii) approved
>> >>>>> by the Board, in each
>> case, using the same process and
>> >>>>> criteria as for Work
>> Stream 1 Recommendations.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (b) No person or
>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>> >>>>> reconsideration
>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>> or the
>> >>>>> independent review
>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>> >>>>> solely on the
>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>> forth in
>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>> contemplated
>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>> >>>>> or the Board that
>> occurred prior to the____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> effectiveness of the
>> FOI-HR.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Kind regards, ____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Holly and Rosemary____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
>> >>>>> Partner and Co-Chair
>> >>>>> Corporate Governance
>> & Executive Compensation Practice
>> Group____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>> >>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue
>> >>>>> New York, NY 10019
>> >>>>> +1 212 839 5853
>> <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>> >>>>>
>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>> www.sidley.com
>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>> <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
>> >>>>>
>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY
>> AUSTIN LLP*____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> >>>>> This e-mail is sent
>> by a law firm and may contain
>> information
>> >>>>> that is privileged or
>> confidential.
>> >>>>> If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete the
>> >>>>> e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us
>> >>>>> immediately.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Niels ten Oever
>> >> Head of Digital
>> >>
>> >> Article 19
>> >> 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
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> <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
> <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
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list