[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Tue May 3 18:50:50 UTC 2016
This is the point where the Co chairs should intervene and save us from a minority of one.
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 03 May 2016, 11:27AM -07:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> :
>Dear Colleague
>You can put 100 time +
>But until an explicit reference to chartering organisation is not made ,the text is opposed
>Regards
>Kavousd
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 3 May 2016, at 19:10, Dr. Tatiana Tropina < t.tropina at mpicc.de > wrote:
>>
>> +3. I agreed with Greg so many times in the last days, I think I can
>> just make auto-response for any of his emails on this FOI approval topic.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>>> On 03/05/16 18:58, Salaets, Ken wrote:
>>> +2. This is becoming like the movie 'Groundhog Day.' I move the previous question.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Niels ten Oever < lists at nielstenoever.net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160503/a32c8a80/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list